Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The polls don’t look good for Johnson – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 21,036
    JRM is a principled Monarchist.
    He seems to have a different Monarch to the rest of us.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,769

    Julia Hartley-Brewer
    @JuliaHB1
    ·
    1h
    I don't know about you but I'd much prefer it if our police had never been ordered by the PM to investigate many thousands of ordinary law abiding people after he chose to impose draconian laws that criminalised normal social interaction. He made his own bed. Time to lie in it.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1486091677819445251
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,112
    PMs Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May all lost/left office without a general election being called

    Since 1990, only Major (1997) and Brown (2010) have lost office with a general election

    Two in 32 years

    Constitutional illiteracy from the Leader of the Commons


    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1486114828141965313?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 99,118
    edited January 25
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    School isn't a choice. It's mandatory and decisions about it are done on behalf of children who, at the sorts of ages we're talking about, lack the capacity to make these big choices.

    If you think all that sounds a bit like whether to pick up Options hot chocolate versus Tesco value cocoa powder, then you're as deluded as anyone can possibly be.
    No, school is a choice. Schools which get the best results get more pupils wanting to go to them.

    That applies the same as any other product or business or a shop. Ideologically socialists oppose choice and want to nationalise everything and restrict choice in everything, conservatives back choice including free schools, academies, education vouchers, grammars etc so parents can choose the best school for their child
    School is NOT a choice. You have to go.

    And again, it's nothing at all like shopping. The end user isn't making their own decisions, you can't just chop and change. if the Tesco staff are suddenly shit, you can switch to Asda tomorrow and never go back.
    If your child is at a school that starts to go wrong, you can't just turn on a sixpence and change. So there's HUGE pressure to choose what you think is the best. And -- are you still paying attention? because this is the suckerpunch -- the quality of a school depends massively on who goes there. A concentration of disruptive pupils leads to staff churn leads to poor reputation and quickly you have a sink school. That's what choice does. Even more so when you have barriers to entry to some schools. Religion, money, performance. All of these things stratify schools and leave some schools trapped in failure.

    Feedback loops in quality are a FEATURE of selection. It's the whole point. So when you're in favour of choice, you're in favour of concentrating quality and leaving many children behind. You're setting up the losers to fail. You know it, we know you know it, and you know that we know you know it.

    It's time you dropped the free-market ideology in this sector because it doesn't work in the same way as supermarkets. Or just admit you're fine with systematically writing off huge numbers of children.
    You have to go to the supermarket or the shops too, whether in person or online, school IS a choice exactly like them.

    If a school is very poor then fewer parents will send their children there, that is choice.

    It is trapping pupils in poor schools with disruptive pupils that creates problems. Setting them free with education vouchers, free schools, if they are bright grammar schools, is the best way to raise standards and ensure pupil motivation. Religion too instilling Christian values in schools, exactly what I want more of.

    It is ending choice which as usual with socialism levels everyone down to the lowest common denominator
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,512
    RobD said:

    JRM seems to have a habit of constitution-tampering.

    I’ve no doubt it’s his idea to cast doubt on the legality of Tory Party VONCs too.

    The man should be impeached, horsewhipped, and exiled.

    Only the Queen can grant a dissolution so he is talking utter horseshit.
    HM lost those powers with the FTPA.
    And JRM's government is seeking to restore them via a bill!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 99,118
    edited January 25
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"

    You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
    You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.

    Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
    You are a wet, left liberal, socialist, exactly the type of person I consider my political enemy.

    I could not care less what you think of me
    Yet I could pick up my phone tomorrow morning and have a 5 minute chat with the Chancellor or the Business Secretary (nature of the job I'm currently doing which is fixing a problem that costs the Chancellor about £300m in tax avoidance).

    I somehow doubt you could.
    I spoke to the Chancellor via Zoom only last year.

    However I could not care whether you are a billionaire or on UC, ideologically based on your views you are still my political enemy
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,402
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    You attend church yet you support a distinctly shady character like the PM?
    Boris is a Christian, albeit a Catholic, Starmer is an atheist.

    Davey to be fair to him is Church of England too.

    I could never vote for an atheist, so that rules Starmer out
    Could you outline to me the Christian virtues that Johnson demonstrates in his life?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,769
    This thread will not age well at all me thinks...


    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1486104904750047233
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,291
    edited January 25
    HYUFD embracing a big tent approach.... atheists and socially liberal types need not apply.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877

    HYUFD said:



    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway

    Rather like being insufficiently Conservative? In another era, you'd have had a great career in the Spanish Inquisition, seeking out the insufficiently fervent with awesome dedication.
    I think some of the Christian baiting bile needs to be turned down and replaced with a more constructive and enlightening point, not least because how it’s shredding reputation of the people saying it.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,112
    Ambushed by Cake: it just has to be the title of my next book! #AmbushedByCake

    https://twitter.com/Nigella_Lawson/status/1486092328867663877?s=20
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,769
    edited January 25
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    JRM seems to have a habit of constitution-tampering.

    I’ve no doubt it’s his idea to cast doubt on the legality of Tory Party VONCs too.

    The man should be impeached, horsewhipped, and exiled.

    Only the Queen can grant a dissolution so he is talking utter horseshit.
    HM lost those powers with the FTPA.
    And JRM's government is seeking to restore them via a bill!
    To be honest I thought that had passed.

    When is it timetabled for?

    Edit: A timely reminder of what an utter crock of shit Osborne's FTPA was/is.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,955
    Totally off-topic - but tremendous fun...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3O8mwDFo4M
  • eekeek Posts: 19,277
    edited January 25

    HYUFD embracing a big tent approach.... atheists and socially liberal types need not apply.

    What's funny is that I'm not an atheist nor particular socially liberal.

    The only reason he thinks I'm socially liberal is that I understand that there are two sides to many issues while HYUFD's understanding is that he is right and everyone else is utterly wrong unless they 100% agree with him.

    And the reality is that HYUFD has the typical weakness of not grasping how little he actually knows.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,112
    Constitutional conservatism in a nutshell: our constitution is an unchangeable sacred inheritance from our ancestors, except when it happens to be expedient for us to rewrite it.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1486113598225141762?s=20
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315
    .

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    JRM seems to have a habit of constitution-tampering.

    I’ve no doubt it’s his idea to cast doubt on the legality of Tory Party VONCs too.

    The man should be impeached, horsewhipped, and exiled.

    Only the Queen can grant a dissolution so he is talking utter horseshit.
    HM lost those powers with the FTPA.
    And JRM's government is seeking to restore them via a bill!
    To be honest I thought that had passed.

    When is it timetabled for?

    Edit: A timely reminder of what an utter crock of shit Osborne's FTPA was/is.
    Not yet passed:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_Parliament_Bill
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,413
    Slightly perturbed by Boris hostile posters getting bored of this. Quite possible Boris's side putting a few silly photos out there and suddenly the day 1 righteous anger dissipates because it's all a bit dumb. Et voila, suddenly the zip wire trick has been pulled.

    Hold on to what those rules meant for us and how he treated them, don't allow this to evaporate, not least because the quickest way to be rid of this as a political issue is for Boris to be gone.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,181
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    You attend church yet you support a distinctly shady character like the PM?
    Boris is a Christian, albeit a Catholic, Starmer is an atheist.

    Davey to be fair to him is Church of England too.

    I could never vote for an atheist, so that rules Starmer out
    Could you outline to me the Christian virtues that Johnson demonstrates in his life?
    Sinning and a half hearted confession, before moving on to the next sin?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,512

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    JRM seems to have a habit of constitution-tampering.

    I’ve no doubt it’s his idea to cast doubt on the legality of Tory Party VONCs too.

    The man should be impeached, horsewhipped, and exiled.

    Only the Queen can grant a dissolution so he is talking utter horseshit.
    HM lost those powers with the FTPA.
    And JRM's government is seeking to restore them via a bill!
    To be honest I thought that had passed.

    When is it timetabled for?

    Edit: A timely reminder of what an utter crock of shit Osborne's FTPA was/is.
    Committee stage was scheduled for today!

    https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2859/news
  • If Jacob Rees-Crackers wants to change the constitution, he should do so the traditional bloody way.

    Via a letter to the Times.

    Or he could give another speech to the 'Traditional Britain Group' who promote voluntary repatriation of 'non europeans"?

    https://theconversation.com/rees-mogg-dinner-was-a-nod-to-the-tories-unpalatable-past-16922
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    You attend church yet you support a distinctly shady character like the PM?
    Boris is a Christian, albeit a Catholic, Starmer is an atheist.

    Davey to be fair to him is Church of England too.

    I could never vote for an atheist, so that rules Starmer out
    Could you outline to me the Christian virtues that Johnson demonstrates in his life?
    From his particular sect, every sperm is sacred?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,133

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Tory MPs say Boris Johnson will have to resign as Prime Minister if he is fined for breaking Covid laws.

    [Very much an ‘if’, PM’s spokesman today said Johnson believes he has not broken Covid laws]
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1486105110811922436/photo/1

    Why will he have to resign? Because they think he should?

    Bl**dy cowards! They know what they need to do :angry:
    It sounds like setting a deliberately high bar so as to be able to say they're not sending a letter in because hre's not been charged.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,277
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    JRM seems to have a habit of constitution-tampering.

    I’ve no doubt it’s his idea to cast doubt on the legality of Tory Party VONCs too.

    The man should be impeached, horsewhipped, and exiled.

    Only the Queen can grant a dissolution so he is talking utter horseshit.
    HM lost those powers with the FTPA.
    And JRM's government is seeking to restore them via a bill!
    To be honest I thought that had passed.

    When is it timetabled for?

    Edit: A timely reminder of what an utter crock of shit Osborne's FTPA was/is.
    Committee stage was scheduled for today!

    https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2859/news
    Wasn't discussed today as far as I can see https://whatson.parliament.uk/committees/2022-01-25/

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,181
    Pro_Rata said:

    Slightly perturbed by Boris hostile posters getting bored of this. Quite possible Boris's side putting a few silly photos out there and suddenly the day 1 righteous anger dissipates because it's all a bit dumb. Et voila, suddenly the zip wire trick has been pulled.

    Hold on to what those rules meant for us and how he treated them, don't allow this to evaporate, not least because the quickest way to be rid of this as a political issue is for Boris to be gone.

    From here in terms of public opinion he probably starts to get a few % points back as people get bored of it all, and even start to have sympathy for the poor man. Not many, perhaps 2-4% would be my guess. He has probably already hit the bottom for unpopularity regardless of future revelations or the outcomes of the reports.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 99,118

    HYUFD embracing a big tent approach.... atheists and socially liberal types need not apply.

    Most of them aren't anyway, 47% of atheists voted Labour in 2017 for example to only 32% who voted Tory in an election the Tories won most seats in.

    http://www.brin.ac.uk/religious-affiliation-and-party-choice-at-the-2017-general-election/
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,098

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    You attend church yet you support a distinctly shady character like the PM?
    Boris is a Christian, albeit a Catholic, Starmer is an atheist.

    Davey to be fair to him is Church of England too.

    I could never vote for an atheist, so that rules Starmer out
    Could you outline to me the Christian virtues that Johnson demonstrates in his life?
    From his particular sect, every sperm is sacred?
    That's a "loaded" remark if I must say!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,553

    HYUFD embracing a big tent approach.... atheists and socially liberal types need not apply.

    If they got into the tent they’d only piss all over him.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,955

    One day no one in the Tory party will own up to ever supporting any of this shower of shit.

    Because this shower of sh*t are NOT conservatives. If the real Conservative Party ever returns, they will be very different from this mob.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 99,118
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    School isn't a choice. It's mandatory and decisions about it are done on behalf of children who, at the sorts of ages we're talking about, lack the capacity to make these big choices.

    If you think all that sounds a bit like whether to pick up Options hot chocolate versus Tesco value cocoa powder, then you're as deluded as anyone can possibly be.
    No, school is a choice. Schools which get the best results get more pupils wanting to go to them.

    That applies the same as any other product or business or a shop. Ideologically socialists oppose choice and want to nationalise everything and restrict choice in everything, conservatives back choice including free schools, academies, education vouchers, grammars etc so parents can choose the best school for their child
    School is NOT a choice. You have to go.

    And again, it's nothing at all like shopping. The end user isn't making their own decisions, you can't just chop and change. if the Tesco staff are suddenly shit, you can switch to Asda tomorrow and never go back.
    If your child is at a school that starts to go wrong, you can't just turn on a sixpence and change. So there's HUGE pressure to choose what you think is the best. And -- are you still paying attention? because this is the suckerpunch -- the quality of a school depends massively on who goes there. A concentration of disruptive pupils leads to staff churn leads to poor reputation and quickly you have a sink school. That's what choice does. Even more so when you have barriers to entry to some schools. Religion, money, performance. All of these things stratify schools and leave some schools trapped in failure.

    Feedback loops in quality are a FEATURE of selection. It's the whole point. So when you're in favour of choice, you're in favour of concentrating quality and leaving many children behind. You're setting up the losers to fail. You know it, we know you know it, and you know that we know you know it.

    It's time you dropped the free-market ideology in this sector because it doesn't work in the same way as supermarkets. Or just admit you're fine with systematically writing off huge numbers of children.
    You have to go to the supermarket or the shops too, whether in person or online, school IS a choice exactly like them.

    If a school is very poor then fewer parents will send their children their, that is choice.

    It is trapping pupils in poor schools with disruptive pupils that creates problems. Setting them free with education vouchers, free schools, if they are bright grammar schools, is the best way to raise standards and ensure pupil motivation. Religion too instilling Christian values in schools, exactly what I want more of.

    It is ending choice which as usual with socialism levels everyone down to the lowest common denominator
    Have you ever tried moving a child from one school to another?

    Do... do you even know that children are people? It's a huge disruption. It takes time to settle in, make new friends, get used to the different patterns and cadences of the new place. It can be really harmful if done carelessly.

    And you think it's like switching between Colgate and Mentadent.

    You need to try living in the real world instead of the dusty Ayn Rand fantasy you call home.
    Well they won't be able to even have a choice of secondary after primary if socialists have their way.

    I am also obviously no Ayn Rand libertarian either, just a conservative
  • eekeek Posts: 19,277

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"

    You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
    You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.

    Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
    A tad harsh that post? ☹️
    You weren't around for HYUFD's last abortion "discussion". His views would have Texas evangelical TV Ministers pausing in shock.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited January 25
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Tory MPs say Boris Johnson will have to resign as Prime Minister if he is fined for breaking Covid laws.

    [Very much an ‘if’, PM’s spokesman today said Johnson believes he has not broken Covid laws]
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1486105110811922436/photo/1

    My problem with that story is which Tory MPs, previously sitting on fence ones or same ones who put letters in and publicly called for him to go. The crime being committed here against political bettors is trying to con us into thinking a dial is turning when it’s not.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,893
    Scott_xP said:

    Having spent an evening chatting with sources...

    No10 is prepped for the Gray eport to be public domain tomorrow.

    If it's official publication: PM will give a statement post-PMQs & full report will be published at a later date, probs Feb1, when oppo has control of business

    If it's leaked, different ball game. No lock in, no statement. Government will encourage oppo to push into Feb1 to go through formal process.

    But government fears briefing will push the leak.

    There are three factions pushing the leak

    1) Tories who want Boris gone. They just want their day in court
    2) Oppo who are worried Police investigation pulls the teeth from Gray report so put pressure on it coming out asap
    3) Boris supporters who think report will not meet the hype so get it out asap

    Government is basically ready to fight this whatever happens. Boris wants to be PM and wants to not be kneecapped. Rumour has it some (not in government, backbench supporters with legal background) are even making arguments that the Tory party constitution isn't legally binding

    Meanwhile the Boris out crowd is pushing for 22 to rewrite the rules to change 12 month lock to six. This is going to be horrible messy. A leak would be the messiest way to kick off months of horror


    https://twitter.com/lukemcgee/status/1486097060352909320

    Boris's transformation into Trump is complete. Next he'll be urging his supporters to fight Tory MPs in the streets and overthrow the party.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,181
    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Having spent an evening chatting with sources...

    No10 is prepped for the Gray eport to be public domain tomorrow.

    If it's official publication: PM will give a statement post-PMQs & full report will be published at a later date, probs Feb1, when oppo has control of business

    If it's leaked, different ball game. No lock in, no statement. Government will encourage oppo to push into Feb1 to go through formal process.

    But government fears briefing will push the leak.

    There are three factions pushing the leak

    1) Tories who want Boris gone. They just want their day in court
    2) Oppo who are worried Police investigation pulls the teeth from Gray report so put pressure on it coming out asap
    3) Boris supporters who think report will not meet the hype so get it out asap

    Government is basically ready to fight this whatever happens. Boris wants to be PM and wants to not be kneecapped. Rumour has it some (not in government, backbench supporters with legal background) are even making arguments that the Tory party constitution isn't legally binding

    Meanwhile the Boris out crowd is pushing for 22 to rewrite the rules to change 12 month lock to six. This is going to be horrible messy. A leak would be the messiest way to kick off months of horror


    https://twitter.com/lukemcgee/status/1486097060352909320

    Boris's transformation into Trump is complete. Next he'll be urging his supporters to fight Tory MPs in the streets and overthrow the party.
    Priti has outlawed all that demonstration nonsense.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 99,118
    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"

    You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
    You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.

    Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
    A tad harsh that post? ☹️
    You weren't around for HYUFD's last abortion "discussion". His views would have Texas evangelical TV Ministers pausing in shock.
    King David, Psalm 139, 'For You created my inmost being;
    You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    14 I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
    15 My frame was not hidden from You
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
    16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in Your book
    before one of them came to be.'

    The unborn child is a human life and you accuse me of not being a proper Christian?

    I want to reduce the abortion time limit and unapologetically so, even if I recognise it is not going to be banned again
  • eekeek Posts: 19,277

    One day no one in the Tory party will own up to ever supporting any of this shower of shit.

    Because this shower of sh*t are NOT conservatives. If the real Conservative Party ever returns, they will be very different from this mob.
    Boris destroyed a lot of the real Conservative Party when he forced David Gauke and Rory Stewart amongst others out. He's now destroying the rest of it as a lot of people have highlighted that he would.
  • MrBristolMrBristol Posts: 27
    edited January 25


    Julia Hartley-Brewer
    @JuliaHB1
    ·
    1h
    I don't know about you but I'd much prefer it if our police had never been ordered by the PM to investigate many thousands of ordinary law abiding people after he chose to impose draconian laws that criminalised normal social interaction. He made his own bed. Time to lie in it.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1486091677819445251

    Shudder.... That terrible feeling when you agree with some of Julia Hartley-Brewer tweets... . There should be a word for this feeling.

    Hopefully a fun day of political excitement but I'm braced for dispointment.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,112
    Minister who gave unlawful advice to the Queen on prorogation now declares that we have a presidential system

    So disrespectful in her platinum jubilee year


    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1486120033730322435?s=20
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,031
    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,277
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"

    You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
    You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.

    Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
    A tad harsh that post? ☹️
    You weren't around for HYUFD's last abortion "discussion". His views would have Texas evangelical TV Ministers pausing in shock.
    King David, Psalm 139, 'For You created my inmost being;
    You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    14 I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
    15 My frame was not hidden from You
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
    16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in Your book
    before one of them came to be.'

    The unborn child is a human life and you accuse me of not being a proper Christian?

    I want to reduce the abortion time limit and unapologetically so, even if I recognise it is not going to be banned again
    No you want to ban abortion.

    Because you can't do that you wish to make abortion harder to obtain.

    When the simple fact is that we are both male and it has got absolutely nothing to do with us.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 896
    The polls are irrelevant and a waste of a talking point. Johnson is 90% gone. It might be around this investigation, it might be post the May elections but the chances of him surviving his own party (Conservative, not birthday) are in serious longshot territory.

    Whilst people obsess about some parties as if its world dominating important, we continue to watch a confrontation of a type over Ukraine that is properly alarming. The problem is that Putin, the thieving desk jockey that he is, has staked so much on this that he can't back down if he can't get serious concessions. The level of concession is hard for the core Western alliance (i.e. excluding the German state who are useless, conniving rat faced bastards along with a few others) to accept.

    Russian strategy is centred around concession by threat of force, but what if the US and others refuse to cave? That leaves a 'must be seen to do something' situation. e.g.

    1. Absorbing the seized provinces in the east & Crimea

    2. As has been called out more than once, support a coup in Ukraine, install a friendly face, job done.

    3. Create instability in Ukraine excusing an intervention designed to damage Ukraine / have its people be coerced into accepting a realpolitik of distance from the West and greater Russian influence under threat of worse

    4. Create a border event, excusing an intervention designed to damage Ukraine / have its people be coerced into accepting a realpolitik of distance from the West and greater Russian influence under threat of worse

    5. Seizing more territory

    One wonders about President Big Hat in Belarus in all this. The man has effectively opened the door to a sizeable Russian military presence and a proper, de facto, annexation.




  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,955

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Tory MPs say Boris Johnson will have to resign as Prime Minister if he is fined for breaking Covid laws.

    [Very much an ‘if’, PM’s spokesman today said Johnson believes he has not broken Covid laws]
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1486105110811922436/photo/1

    Why will he have to resign? Because they think he should?

    Bl**dy cowards! They know what they need to do :angry:
    It sounds like setting a deliberately high bar so as to be able to say they're not sending a letter in because hre's not been charged.
    The message appears to be that they want the current set-up to carry on.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited January 25
    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"

    You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
    You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.

    Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
    A tad harsh that post? ☹️
    You weren't around for HYUFD's last abortion "discussion". His views would have Texas evangelical TV Ministers pausing in shock.
    I’m not getting at you Eek, not saying your wrong but two wrongs don’t make a right - there’s ways to discuss and debate that build our share price too, in the eyes of all reading it.

    We don’t just want to be seen dismantling a bad argument or position, we want to be seen doing it cool, calm and so politely it hurts? And with a wink of humour and good spirit 🙂
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,553
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"

    You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
    You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.

    Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
    A tad harsh that post? ☹️
    You weren't around for HYUFD's last abortion "discussion". His views would have Texas evangelical TV Ministers pausing in shock.
    King David, Psalm 139, 'For You created my inmost being;
    You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    14 I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
    15 My frame was not hidden from You
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
    16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in Your book
    before one of them came to be.'

    The unborn child is a human life and you accuse me of not being a proper Christian?

    I want to reduce the abortion time limit and unapologetically so, even if I recognise it is not going to be banned again
    Are there any other Old Testament admonitions that you feel we should live by?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,512

    Minister who gave unlawful advice to the Queen on prorogation now declares that we have a presidential system

    So disrespectful in her platinum jubilee year


    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1486120033730322435?s=20

    As a monarchist it is that sort of thing which makes me so confident if the Queen, or her successors, ever sought to exercise theoretical powers in a way a government did not like, that they would be removed pronto - adherence to the 'rules' are skin deep in some who you might think would be traditional.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,277
    MrBristol said:


    Julia Hartley-Brewer
    @JuliaHB1
    ·
    1h
    I don't know about you but I'd much prefer it if our police had never been ordered by the PM to investigate many thousands of ordinary law abiding people after he chose to impose draconian laws that criminalised normal social interaction. He made his own bed. Time to lie in it.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1486091677819445251

    Shudder.... That terrible feeling when you agree with some of Julia Hartley-Brewer tweets... . There should be a word for this feeling.

    Hopefully a fun day of political excitement but I'm braced for dispointment.

    Oh nothing will occur tomorrow - Boris will carry on because Tory MPs don't know if enough will vote against Boris to make calling a VONC worthwhile.

    You can see it clearly in the attempts to change the time frame between VONCs.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    MrBristol said:


    Julia Hartley-Brewer
    @JuliaHB1
    ·
    1h
    I don't know about you but I'd much prefer it if our police had never been ordered by the PM to investigate many thousands of ordinary law abiding people after he chose to impose draconian laws that criminalised normal social interaction. He made his own bed. Time to lie in it.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1486091677819445251

    Shudder.... That terrible feeling when you agree with some of Julia Hartley-Brewer tweets... . There should be a word for this feeling.

    Hopefully a fun day of political excitement but I'm braced for dispointment.

    It’s always good to see Bristols 🙂

    Post number 11 Mr Bristols. How’s politics looking down there, are the Greens still on the rise?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 13,304
    edited January 25
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"

    You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
    You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.

    Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
    A tad harsh that post? ☹️
    You weren't around for HYUFD's last abortion "discussion". His views would have Texas evangelical TV Ministers pausing in shock.
    King David, Psalm 139, 'For You created my inmost being;
    You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    14 I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
    15 My frame was not hidden from You
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
    16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in Your book
    before one of them came to be.'

    The unborn child is a human life and you accuse me of not being a proper Christian?

    I want to reduce the abortion time limit and unapologetically so, even if I recognise it is not going to be banned again
    Your questionable views aside, that’s a beautiful verse.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,277
    edited January 25

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    That's true if the test is a series of exams it falls apart if the method used (as it currently is in most places) is a single exam. Then a whole set of secondary factors can result in even the brightest child failing to pass the exam that day.

    Case in point my nephew failed his 11 plus down South due to having chicken pox on the day of the exam. Although the brightest in the school (as shown in all KS1 and KS2 exams) he had to wait till the 13 plus to get in.

    His parents then decided to send him to private school for 2 years - I don't think my mum has ever forgiven them.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,955

    HYUFD embracing a big tent approach.... atheists and socially liberal types need not apply.

    I would not want to be in his tent anyway...
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,511
    Foxy said:

    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    As I sip a small glass of Singe Malt and toast my Hibernian ancestors and the immortal bard, I do hope that Johnson has a glass to go with his (political career) revolver. Can he be relied on to do the decent thing? 🤔

    Is Singe Malt = Monkey Shoulder?
    Mmmm, that’s a bit underhand. Foxy strikes me more of a Lagavulin man
    I do like the Islay malts, but tonight have Jura, which is close enough.
    North end of Islay is where the great stuff is. Bunnahabhain and Caol Ila. Just a short trip to Jura too.
    Not so much a fan of the former, but do like the latter.

    I should be drinking Benromach though, as that is the village where my Scottish ancestors migrated from, but alas the bottle is dry.
    Wow. Small world.

    (Not a village).
  • MrBristolMrBristol Posts: 27
    eek said:

    MrBristol said:


    Julia Hartley-Brewer
    @JuliaHB1
    ·
    1h
    I don't know about you but I'd much prefer it if our police had never been ordered by the PM to investigate many thousands of ordinary law abiding people after he chose to impose draconian laws that criminalised normal social interaction. He made his own bed. Time to lie in it.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1486091677819445251

    Shudder.... That terrible feeling when you agree with some of Julia Hartley-Brewer tweets... . There should be a word for this feeling.

    Hopefully a fun day of political excitement but I'm braced for dispointment.

    Oh nothing will occur tomorrow - Boris will carry on because Tory MPs don't know if enough will vote against Boris to make calling a VONC worthwhile.

    You can see it clearly in the attempts to change the time frame between VONCs.
    I feel in my heart you might well be right.

    It is a bizarre situation to think we have Tory PM who has had to apologise to the Queen for his staff's behaviour and now being investigated by the police. Quite startling really.

    I get the feeling this Tory rein is due to finish at the next GE mainly as they don't seem to have any vision or drive to deliver anything in particular. The Brexit stuff is 'done' (just the hard work part left of rebuilding), there is some vague notion of leveling up, other than that we just have rising taxes, inflation and a level of unprofessional behaviour at the top that is surreal.

    Ho hum.


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,402
    Eabhal said:

    Foxy said:

    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    As I sip a small glass of Singe Malt and toast my Hibernian ancestors and the immortal bard, I do hope that Johnson has a glass to go with his (political career) revolver. Can he be relied on to do the decent thing? 🤔

    Is Singe Malt = Monkey Shoulder?
    Mmmm, that’s a bit underhand. Foxy strikes me more of a Lagavulin man
    I do like the Islay malts, but tonight have Jura, which is close enough.
    North end of Islay is where the great stuff is. Bunnahabhain and Caol Ila. Just a short trip to Jura too.
    Not so much a fan of the former, but do like the latter.

    I should be drinking Benromach though, as that is the village where my Scottish ancestors migrated from, but alas the bottle is dry.
    Wow. Small world.

    (Not a village).
    It was quite a bit smaller when they left!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,291
    France reports 501,635 new coronavirus cases, becoming the second country in the world to reach half a million cases in 1 day
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Tory MPs say Boris Johnson will have to resign as Prime Minister if he is fined for breaking Covid laws.

    [Very much an ‘if’, PM’s spokesman today said Johnson believes he has not broken Covid laws]
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1486105110811922436/photo/1

    Why will he have to resign? Because they think he should?

    Bl**dy cowards! They know what they need to do :angry:
    It sounds like setting a deliberately high bar so as to be able to say they're not sending a letter in because hre's not been charged.
    This putsch is fizzling out now as failed. There’s so many of them waiting for the media storm to die out and watch if Boris ratings can recover, and that’s fair enough isn’t it. Whose to say they are wrong, he can’t recover?

    You’ve been there Nick, right in the game, as much as a nice guy and everything you are, there are political rules to follow for sink or swim? Correct me where wrong, first rule of politics, don’t call it to a vote unless you know you do win, second rule of politics, in votes on toppling those in power, always vote with the winning side.

    Especially for the greasy polers you all but admitted the other day wasn’t you?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315

    France reports 501,635 new coronavirus cases, becoming the second country in the world to reach half a million cases in 1 day

    Plague continent? ;)
  • MrBristolMrBristol Posts: 27

    MrBristol said:


    Julia Hartley-Brewer
    @JuliaHB1
    ·
    1h
    I don't know about you but I'd much prefer it if our police had never been ordered by the PM to investigate many thousands of ordinary law abiding people after he chose to impose draconian laws that criminalised normal social interaction. He made his own bed. Time to lie in it.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1486091677819445251

    Shudder.... That terrible feeling when you agree with some of Julia Hartley-Brewer tweets... . There should be a word for this feeling.

    Hopefully a fun day of political excitement but I'm braced for dispointment.

    It’s always good to see Bristols 🙂

    Post number 11 Mr Bristols. How’s politics looking down there, are the Greens still on the rise?
    Not sure, I've been head down working (and trying to keep up with all the forums posts 🙂)

    Seems to be a lot of politics going on at the moment.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,445

    France reports 501,635 new coronavirus cases, becoming the second country in the world to reach admit to half a million cases in 1 day

    FTFY
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,291
    RobD said:

    France reports 501,635 new coronavirus cases, becoming the second country in the world to reach half a million cases in 1 day

    Plague continent? ;)
    I blame all the roast beef driving through france on the way to their homes in Spain...
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,374

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    MrBristol said:

    MrBristol said:


    Julia Hartley-Brewer
    @JuliaHB1
    ·
    1h
    I don't know about you but I'd much prefer it if our police had never been ordered by the PM to investigate many thousands of ordinary law abiding people after he chose to impose draconian laws that criminalised normal social interaction. He made his own bed. Time to lie in it.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1486091677819445251

    Shudder.... That terrible feeling when you agree with some of Julia Hartley-Brewer tweets... . There should be a word for this feeling.

    Hopefully a fun day of political excitement but I'm braced for dispointment.

    It’s always good to see Bristols 🙂

    Post number 11 Mr Bristols. How’s politics looking down there, are the Greens still on the rise?
    Not sure, I've been head down working (and trying to keep up with all the forums posts 🙂)

    Seems to be a lot of politics going on at the moment.
    It’s a madhouse at the moment! 🙂
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,291
    Wordle time....
  • MrBristol said:

    eek said:

    MrBristol said:


    Julia Hartley-Brewer
    @JuliaHB1
    ·
    1h
    I don't know about you but I'd much prefer it if our police had never been ordered by the PM to investigate many thousands of ordinary law abiding people after he chose to impose draconian laws that criminalised normal social interaction. He made his own bed. Time to lie in it.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1486091677819445251

    Shudder.... That terrible feeling when you agree with some of Julia Hartley-Brewer tweets... . There should be a word for this feeling.

    Hopefully a fun day of political excitement but I'm braced for dispointment.

    Oh nothing will occur tomorrow - Boris will carry on because Tory MPs don't know if enough will vote against Boris to make calling a VONC worthwhile.

    You can see it clearly in the attempts to change the time frame between VONCs.
    I feel in my heart you might well be right.

    It is a bizarre situation to think we have Tory PM who has had to apologise to the Queen for his staff's behaviour and now being investigated by the police. Quite startling really.

    I get the feeling this Tory rein is due to finish at the next GE mainly as they don't seem to have any vision or drive to deliver anything in particular. The Brexit stuff is 'done' (just the hard work part left of rebuilding), there is some vague notion of leveling up, other than that we just have rising taxes, inflation and a level of unprofessional behaviour at the top that is surreal.

    Ho hum.


    It might be like that- as we're seeing, is there any idea at all what a post-Boris Conservatism might look like, let alone an agreement? But that leaves two equally unattractive options;

    One is to leave Bozza in place, because nobody really wants to topple him. Late Major, but worse- because of the personal tawdriness. And then the Conservatives wander over the cliff edge in 2024. But BoJo won't want to be defeated, so...

    Some Poor Sod takes over for the lemming march. A third mid-term change is taking the piss, there's still no agreed vision, and nobody else has the chutzpah to hold this version of Conservatism together. So whoever takes over now has two and a bit years (less than May, maybe less than Boris). What mug or ambitious loony will want that?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,981
    .
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"

    You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
    You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.

    Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
    A tad harsh that post? ☹️
    You weren't around for HYUFD's last abortion "discussion". His views would have Texas evangelical TV Ministers pausing in shock.
    King David, Psalm 139, 'For You created my inmost being;
    You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    14 I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
    15 My frame was not hidden from You
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
    16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in Your book
    before one of them came to be.'

    The unborn child is a human life and you accuse me of not being a proper Christian?

    I want to reduce the abortion time limit and unapologetically so, even if I recognise it is not going to be banned again
    I debate this issue with my son. He finds anti-abortion fundamentalism offensive. I try to play Devil's advocate by inserting the moral dilemma into the discussion. I am very much in the corner of a woman's right to decide, nonetheless the subject makes me a little squeamish. I thank the Lord that I am not a religious or moral zealot that has to worry about such questions.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,374

    Wordle time....

    Have you tried this one? 6 letter wordle.
    http://bronze-age.com/worgle/
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    eek said:

    One day no one in the Tory party will own up to ever supporting any of this shower of shit.

    Because this shower of sh*t are NOT conservatives. If the real Conservative Party ever returns, they will be very different from this mob.
    Boris destroyed a lot of the real Conservative Party when he forced David Gauke and Rory Stewart amongst others out. He's now destroying the rest of it as a lot of people have highlighted that he would.
    Absolutely right. It was predicted at the time. And what a fine, balanced and talented cabinet of proper conservatives he scandalously got away with expelling, over just one rebellious vote. Bloodthirsty tyrants have taken over countries with more respect and humility.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,277
    AS @Cookie is here

    The technical annex for the Integrated Rail Plan was released today. It includes such gems as we didn't map the economic benefits because hey that's work and we didn't want to risk it making the project viable.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1049558/integrated-rail-plan-for-the-north-and-midlands-technical-annex.pdf

    is the report and https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1486057565389742087 is a decent thread of starting comments if you care

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 21,036
    Cookie said:

    Wordle time....

    Have you tried this one? 6 letter wordle.
    http://bronze-age.com/worgle/
    Nice one.
    Got it in five.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,955
    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
    One of my daughters was very academic but failed the 11+ (in Trafford). She is due to complete her Ph.D thesis in Chemistry next summer. My other daughter did not even bother to sit the exam and went to the same secondary as her older sister.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,868
    edited January 26

    HYUFD said:



    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway

    Rather like being insufficiently Conservative? In another era, you'd have had a great career in the Spanish Inquisition, seeking out the insufficiently fervent with awesome dedication.
    The Spanish Inquisition was one thing we got rid of by creating the Church of England :smile: . Though technically it existed in Spain, a far off country a long way away.

    Though I think Hyufd here is somewhat underplaying the traditional CofE view that there is a pastoral responsibility to all inhabitants of the parish :wink: .
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,126
    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
    In my son's junior school they taught them the basics of how the exams worked as we are in a Grammar school area. No further tuition was necessary after that and we were rightly told we would be wasting our money if we paid for it. We just went with the school and my son passed. Funnily enough at least two of his classmates whose parents decided to pay for extra tuition against the advice of the school failed. In Lincolnshire there is no maths test. Just verbal and non verbal reasoning.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,277

    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
    One of my daughters was very academic but failed the 11+ (in Trafford). She is due to complete her Ph.D thesis in Chemistry next summer. My other daughter did not even bother to sit the exam and went to the same secondary as her older sister.
    I wonder if you live in the other part of Trafford where you are in the catchment area for the school that Cookie would prefer his daughter to go to rather than the one he fears she will end up at.

    One issue we highlighted earlier is that lack of spare capacity means that most people really only have the choice of a single school unless they are very lucky.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,868
    edited January 26
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:



    So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.

    I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?

    Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.

    That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.

    But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.

    Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.

    La Thatch knew what she was doing.
    As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.

    Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.

    That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
    So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.

    You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
    Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.

    There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.

    And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
    Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.

    There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
    You attend church yet you support a distinctly shady character like the PM?
    Boris is a Christian, albeit a Catholic, Starmer is an atheist.

    Davey to be fair to him is Church of England too.

    I could never vote for an atheist, so that rules Starmer out
    Could you outline to me the Christian virtues that Johnson demonstrates in his life?
    The admission that he needs lots of forgiveness :smile:
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,374
    edited January 26
    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    Wordle time....

    Have you tried this one? 6 letter wordle.
    http://bronze-age.com/worgle/
    Nice one.
    Got it in five.
    Me too. Though it was a bit of a sweat today! Ruled out most of the letters which seemed to fit together early on and then left with a few unhelpful yellow letters.
    Regular wordle today also in 5, but an easy, never-in-doubt 5.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,868
    edited January 26
    ..
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,133

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Tory MPs say Boris Johnson will have to resign as Prime Minister if he is fined for breaking Covid laws.

    [Very much an ‘if’, PM’s spokesman today said Johnson believes he has not broken Covid laws]
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1486105110811922436/photo/1

    Why will he have to resign? Because they think he should?

    Bl**dy cowards! They know what they need to do :angry:
    It sounds like setting a deliberately high bar so as to be able to say they're not sending a letter in because hre's not been charged.
    This putsch is fizzling out now as failed. There’s so many of them waiting for the media storm to die out and watch if Boris ratings can recover, and that’s fair enough isn’t it. Whose to say they are wrong, he can’t recover?

    You’ve been there Nick, right in the game, as much as a nice guy and everything you are, there are political rules to follow for sink or swim? Correct me where wrong, first rule of politics, don’t call it to a vote unless you know you do win, second rule of politics, in votes on toppling those in power, always vote with the winning side.

    Especially for the greasy polers you all but admitted the other day wasn’t you?
    In Labour somewhat less - we have a lot of politically-motivated politicians, which isn't quite the truism one might think. The Conservatives have a fair number who simply want to run the country pragmatically with no particular objective in mind - not a dishonourable stance but it makes you more open to voting for anyone who'll keep the show on the road. Lots of Labour people have causes that they'll fight for whatever the odds and wouldn't dream of changing sides just to get promotion. See the NEC vote not to reinstate Corbyn today - pressed by the left even though they knew they'd lose by a large margin, because they felt it was bonkers to welcome a Conservative and exclude the previous leader.

    I'd have liked to have a shot at Ministerial office in some suitably nerdy slot - Minister of Energy, perhaps, as I really enjoyed being PPS to Malcolm Wicks. But I reluctantly came to accept that the whips were right to see me as more suited at Select Committee work - lots of detailed study, polite but forensic questioning. nuanced reports, rather than championing the party line at the Dispatch Box.

    But yep, I think BJ has a fair chance of surviving the storm. Just not giving up is an underrated strength in politics - your opponents may eventually get bored/dispirited.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,291
    edited January 26
    Cookie said:

    Wordle time....

    Have you tried this one? 6 letter wordle.
    http://bronze-age.com/worgle/
    Not sure that works as well, due to more limited possibilities. I just did that one in 3, because basically there was only 1 word that i could make given i had 1 yellow and 1 green after 2 attempts.

    Where as OG wordle, i took 5 today, despite having 3 green after 3 guesses, as still a number of possible options.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,603
    I loved Danny Finkelstein's comment that those Tory MP's who said they weren't hearing any criticism of Boris on the doorstep had obviously not bothered to knock on the door
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,868

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Having spent an evening chatting with sources...

    No10 is prepped for the Gray eport to be public domain tomorrow.

    If it's official publication: PM will give a statement post-PMQs & full report will be published at a later date, probs Feb1, when oppo has control of business

    If it's leaked, different ball game. No lock in, no statement. Government will encourage oppo to push into Feb1 to go through formal process.

    But government fears briefing will push the leak.

    There are three factions pushing the leak

    1) Tories who want Boris gone. They just want their day in court
    2) Oppo who are worried Police investigation pulls the teeth from Gray report so put pressure on it coming out asap
    3) Boris supporters who think report will not meet the hype so get it out asap

    Government is basically ready to fight this whatever happens. Boris wants to be PM and wants to not be kneecapped. Rumour has it some (not in government, backbench supporters with legal background) are even making arguments that the Tory party constitution isn't legally binding

    Meanwhile the Boris out crowd is pushing for 22 to rewrite the rules to change 12 month lock to six. This is going to be horrible messy. A leak would be the messiest way to kick off months of horror


    https://twitter.com/lukemcgee/status/1486097060352909320

    Boris's transformation into Trump is complete. Next he'll be urging his supporters to fight Tory MPs in the streets and overthrow the party.
    Priti has outlawed all that demonstration nonsense.
    Um. No she hasn't.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,751

    HYUFD embracing a big tent approach.... atheists and socially liberal types need not apply.

    It’s certainly a big something approach, but I probably misread what you wrote
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,374
    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
    One of my daughters was very academic but failed the 11+ (in Trafford). She is due to complete her Ph.D thesis in Chemistry next summer. My other daughter did not even bother to sit the exam and went to the same secondary as her older sister.
    I wonder if you live in the other part of Trafford where you are in the catchment area for the school that Cookie would prefer his daughter to go to rather than the one he fears she will end up at.

    One issue we highlighted earlier is that lack of spare capacity means that most people really only have the choice of a single school unless they are very lucky.
    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
    One of my daughters was very academic but failed the 11+ (in Trafford). She is due to complete her Ph.D thesis in Chemistry next summer. My other daughter did not even bother to sit the exam and went to the same secondary as her older sister.
    I wonder if you live in the other part of Trafford where you are in the catchment area for the school that Cookie would prefer his daughter to go to rather than the one he fears she will end up at.

    One issue we highlighted earlier is that lack of spare capacity means that most people really only have the choice of a single school unless they are very lucky.
    Yes, Bev lived in Altrincham - if I lived in Altrincham I would be entirely relaxed with two of the three non-grammar schools available there. Wellington and North Cestrian both look great. But are sadly not options from Sale - we just wouldn't get offered a place.
    It's not that the local non-grammar is a sink school - it's fine - it is just a much less edifying option than either Sale Grammar or Wellington or North Cestrian.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,374

    Cookie said:

    Wordle time....

    Have you tried this one? 6 letter wordle.
    http://bronze-age.com/worgle/
    Not sure that works as well, due to more limited possibilities. I just did that one in 3, because basically there was only 1 word that i could make given i had 1 yellow and 1 green after 2 attempts.

    Where as OG wordle, i took 5 today, despite having 3 green after 3 guesses, as still a number of possible options.
    I got to 5 green after three guesses and still took it to round 5!
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,955
    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
    One of my daughters was very academic but failed the 11+ (in Trafford). She is due to complete her Ph.D thesis in Chemistry next summer. My other daughter did not even bother to sit the exam and went to the same secondary as her older sister.
    I wonder if you live in the other part of Trafford where you are in the catchment area for the school that Cookie would prefer his daughter to go to rather than the one he fears she will end up at.

    One issue we highlighted earlier is that lack of spare capacity means that most people really only have the choice of a single school unless they are very lucky.
    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
    One of my daughters was very academic but failed the 11+ (in Trafford). She is due to complete her Ph.D thesis in Chemistry next summer. My other daughter did not even bother to sit the exam and went to the same secondary as her older sister.
    I wonder if you live in the other part of Trafford where you are in the catchment area for the school that Cookie would prefer his daughter to go to rather than the one he fears she will end up at.

    One issue we highlighted earlier is that lack of spare capacity means that most people really only have the choice of a single school unless they are very lucky.
    Yes, Bev lived in Altrincham - if I lived in Altrincham I would be entirely relaxed with two of the three non-grammar schools available there. Wellington and North Cestrian both look great. But are sadly not options from Sale - we just wouldn't get offered a place.
    It's not that the local non-grammar is a sink school - it's fine - it is just a much less edifying option than either Sale Grammar or Wellington or North Cestrian.
    Both of mine went to Ashton
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,086
    edited January 26
    Has the mask mandate ended in England?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    Well, fellow people of good will, the day has come. The one we have been looking forward to all week, and got the big shopping day out the way for on Tuesday.

    All people of good will to pray so that all political initiatives in Ukraine be for the service of human fraternity rather than partisan interests.

    https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/28-january/news/world/church-leaders-warn-against-war-on-ukraine-s-borders

    As the Pope explained last Sunday, together we can terminate this war before it comes, and ensure an enduring peace deal.

    I’m going to start now with my bedtime prayers.

    I wonder if Boris can find time in his bedtime prayers tonight for Ukraine, and not just himself.

    🙏🏻

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,955
    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Having spent an evening chatting with sources...

    No10 is prepped for the Gray eport to be public domain tomorrow.

    If it's official publication: PM will give a statement post-PMQs & full report will be published at a later date, probs Feb1, when oppo has control of business

    If it's leaked, different ball game. No lock in, no statement. Government will encourage oppo to push into Feb1 to go through formal process.

    But government fears briefing will push the leak.

    There are three factions pushing the leak

    1) Tories who want Boris gone. They just want their day in court
    2) Oppo who are worried Police investigation pulls the teeth from Gray report so put pressure on it coming out asap
    3) Boris supporters who think report will not meet the hype so get it out asap

    Government is basically ready to fight this whatever happens. Boris wants to be PM and wants to not be kneecapped. Rumour has it some (not in government, backbench supporters with legal background) are even making arguments that the Tory party constitution isn't legally binding

    Meanwhile the Boris out crowd is pushing for 22 to rewrite the rules to change 12 month lock to six. This is going to be horrible messy. A leak would be the messiest way to kick off months of horror


    https://twitter.com/lukemcgee/status/1486097060352909320

    Boris's transformation into Trump is complete. Next he'll be urging his supporters to fight Tory MPs in the streets and overthrow the party.
    Priti has outlawed all that demonstration nonsense.
    Um. No she hasn't.
    She tried. Thankfully the Lords blocked her
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,374
    edited January 26

    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
    One of my daughters was very academic but failed the 11+ (in Trafford). She is due to complete her Ph.D thesis in Chemistry next summer. My other daughter did not even bother to sit the exam and went to the same secondary as her older sister.
    I wonder if you live in the other part of Trafford where you are in the catchment area for the school that Cookie would prefer his daughter to go to rather than the one he fears she will end up at.

    One issue we highlighted earlier is that lack of spare capacity means that most people really only have the choice of a single school unless they are very lucky.
    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    [snip]
    We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.

    Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
    [snip]

    Actually, I don't think you are quite right there. Admittedly it's a long time since I looked at it, but my recollection is that coaching children for 11-plus style exams has only a limited effect on results, It is true that a child who has never done a similar test or been coached in how to answer them is at a significant disadvantage, but the advantage very soon reaches a point of diminishing returns. In other words, provided all children taking the test have had some help and practice, there's little or no further advantage middle-class kids can get by virtue of their parents paying for more help. As such, a properly-conducted system of such tests, with a basic level of suitable practice for all candidates, is pretty good.
    [Hears name being called] - yes, it's my daughters' primary that won't coach. Not totally true to say that it gets far fewer children in than the equivalent school (similar socio-economic catchment, but does coach) - but it probably is true to say it gets far fewer children in who don't get outside tutoring.
    Now, most parents who sit their child for the 11+ do get outside tutoring - so we have a small sample problem here - there simply aren't that many children who sit it untutored from my daughters' school. But almost all of those who are not tutored, fail. Which is not the case at schools which prepare children for the tests.

    But in any case, having got daughter #1 through the 11+ process and now going through the same with daughter #2, it strikes me as very difficult to get through without some sort of coaching.

    There are three elements to the test in Trafford: maths, English and logic (or non-verbal reasoning).
    As Richard alludes, it's useful to have some training on the logic puzzles for the sorts of things to look for. They are bloody hard. But an intelligent child will get the hang of them reasonably quickly - there are, as Richard says, diminishing returns.
    English is harder, and is the one my literal-minded oldest daughter and dyslexic middle daughter have struggled with most. Having seen the sorts of questions asked and the ways to think about them helps immeasurably, particularly if you are at a school where such things don't come up in normal teaching.
    And maths is the hardest of all to pick up without tuition - many of the concepts simply don't get taught in primary schools until year 6 (or don't get taught at all), by which time the 11+ is already done. Algebra, for example: not difficult once you understand, but a horrible thing to throw at a child who has never been exposed to it.

    Grammar school is right for my oldest (very academic) child. I genuinely don't know for my middle daughter - she's bright, but not as obviously and instinctively academic, and as I say, she's dyslexic. It may be that a grammar school would operate at too fast a pace for her anyway. What I really want for her is somewhere sporty without the sort of scrotes who make life unpleasant for their victims. Unfortunately while such a school as that exists within Trafford, you have to be within catchment to go there - I might choose it for my daughter, but my choice would be irrelevant: she either passes the 11+ and goes to grammar school, or she fails it and goes where the council puts her.
    One of my daughters was very academic but failed the 11+ (in Trafford). She is due to complete her Ph.D thesis in Chemistry next summer. My other daughter did not even bother to sit the exam and went to the same secondary as her older sister.
    I wonder if you live in the other part of Trafford where you are in the catchment area for the school that Cookie would prefer his daughter to go to rather than the one he fears she will end up at.

    One issue we highlighted earlier is that lack of spare capacity means that most people really only have the choice of a single school unless they are very lucky.
    Yes, Bev lived in Altrincham - if I lived in Altrincham I would be entirely relaxed with two of the three non-grammar schools available there. Wellington and North Cestrian both look great. But are sadly not options from Sale - we just wouldn't get offered a place.
    It's not that the local non-grammar is a sink school - it's fine - it is just a much less edifying option than either Sale Grammar or Wellington or North Cestrian.
    Both of mine went to Ashton
    Ah - that's out of scope for me too! I'd have been happy with that one too, for the sport angle if nothing else. These days you need to live within about 1km of that school to go there, so popular is it - which pretty much rules out most people east of the Bridgewater Canal.
    I don't want to come across as a martyr. If the local school was truly awful, we'd have moved. It'll be fine. I'm just disappointed not to be enthusiastic about the options open to me should she not pass.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,955
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:


    Yes, Bev lived in Altrincham - if I lived in Altrincham I would be entirely relaxed with two of the three non-grammar schools available there. Wellington and North Cestrian both look great. But are sadly not options from Sale - we just wouldn't get offered a place.
    It's not that the local non-grammar is a sink school - it's fine - it is just a much less edifying option than either Sale Grammar or Wellington or North Cestrian.

    Both of mine went to Ashton
    Ah - that's out of scope for me too! I'd have been happy with that one too, for the sport angle if nothing else. These days you need to live within about 1km of that school to go there, so popular is it - which pretty much rules out most people east of the Bridgewater Canal.
    Sale East is another planet! I do not even know what schools are over that way :open_mouth:

    Good luck with the admissions and selections :+1:
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,445

    HYUFD said:

    The racism furore in county cricket has reignited after the chairman of Middlesex expressed "outdated" stereotypes on why cricket is failing to nurture black and Asian talent.

    Azeem Rafiq and Ebony Rainford-Brent expressed outrage after Mike O'Farrell told MPs young black players prefer football and south Asian communities prioritise education.

    O'Farrell's comments were immediately likened with the career-ending words of former FA chairman Greg Clarke, who told the same committee in 2020 that south Asian people choose careers in IT over sport.

    "The other thing in the diversity bit is that the football and rugby world becomes much more attractive to the Afro-Caribbean community," said the Middlesex chief as he sat alongside other county chairmen at the first parliamentary hearing on cricket since Rafiq's bombshell evidence last November.

    "And in terms of the South Asian community, there is a moment where we're finding that they do not want necessarily to commit the same time that is necessary to go to the next step because they sometimes prefer to go into other educational fields, and then cricket becomes secondary. And part of that is because it's a rather more time-consuming sport than some others. So we're finding that's difficult."


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/01/25/middlesex-chairman-facing-backlash-outdated-claim-black-people/

    Sport should always be secondary to education. I professional sportsperson will have a career of maybe 20 years. A good education lasts for life.
    Depends how good you are, if you are an outstanding footballer or cricketer or tennis player or rugby player then you will likely earn more from professional sport than you ever would in any other field.

    If you are only average or crap at sport, education is obviously far more important as you have zero chance of a professional sports career but your education level will likely determine your future earnings. You can still play sport for fun or fitness but grades come first
    As I noted down thread, "outstanding" tennis. It isn't true. I think most people would say 150th in the world is outstanding, after all your expenses you won't basically take any money at all. Tennis is one of the most top heavy sports going, Nadal, Novax, Federer makes £10 millions a year, Liam Broady (128th in the world) has to have a lodger to pay the rent on his flat.

    Cricket, if you only make it to county cricket, again, no you will be on crap money. Minimum county cricket salary is £24k a year. Its only if you make it to international or IPL level that you can make real money.
    This is true for most sports. Don’t forget sponsorship though. County cricketers etc get a car, free bats and kit etc. They will also expect to get a benefit season towards the end, useful for setting up the next stage of their lives.
    I note Brady has career earnings north of 1,000,000 dollars. Letting out the flat you don’t need while globe trotting is just sound business.
    Cricketers getting free bats, while being paid £25k a year woophie. Its why so many have to have a second job of some sort (be it more cricket or other off season income). Also making it through 10 years of county cricket is far from a certainty. And its a pretty shitty life constantly on the road living out of budget hotels.

    As for Broady, as explained, his expenses are vast and sponsorship small. I don't have the video link to hand, but he explains if he doesn't win a round at one of the grand slams in a year, he can't pay for his strength and conditioning coach. He spends £12k a year out of his own pocket on restring-ing his rackets alone. The constant travel for tennis is eye wateringly expensive, without the sort of income that say golf can provide.

    I think he says from that $1m, he has made about $100k....in 10 years.
    Yes, to be clear I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The top end really distorts perceptions about how much money sport pays.
    Yes and no. Tennis is problematic because if you are 100th in the world, you play basically always play the top guys in R1 and go home with no money.

    Something like golf, the base is much wider in terms of pay outs, but also you don't have to beat the World #1 to make any money. You can be 200-300th (even lower) in the world at golf and be earning a very decent living.
    I’m sure you are right, but don’t they have similar issues re coaches, caddy, constant travel etc too? But yes it does seem easier to earn at a lower level.
    take the 100th best at a sport in the world--

    Golf - millionaire perhaps ? 6 figure earnings annually
    Tennis - Not far away from golf
    Athletics - relying on a 20-30k a year UK sport grant probably
    Snooker - on the breadline
    Darts - is a postman/builder
    Cricket -60k a year playing as a senior pro at county/state level?
    Football - multi milliionaire ,fawned by fans earning 7 figure sums annually .

    Always be a footballer!!

    100th best golfer in the world is winning several million a year.

    The 100th best tennis player is winning more like $100-200k, before massive expenses.

    Cricket, its £25k a year base salary for a country cricketer. Senior pros will be lucky to be £60k. Its why guns for hire for world T20 leagues is such a popular job.
    100% agree with all of that.

    When I was in Dubai a few years ago, I organized a tennis lesson at my hotel. The guy who taught me was filling in for a month or so between tournaments, and was 120th or so in the World.

    He told me that it was a pretty difficult life, sleeping on peoples' floors, travelling super cheap, and you had to make it up by teaching rich assholes tennis. And you did it for the one tournament a year where you made it to the quarter finals, and earned $25k.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,374
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The racism furore in county cricket has reignited after the chairman of Middlesex expressed "outdated" stereotypes on why cricket is failing to nurture black and Asian talent.

    Azeem Rafiq and Ebony Rainford-Brent expressed outrage after Mike O'Farrell told MPs young black players prefer football and south Asian communities prioritise education.

    O'Farrell's comments were immediately likened with the career-ending words of former FA chairman Greg Clarke, who told the same committee in 2020 that south Asian people choose careers in IT over sport.

    "The other thing in the diversity bit is that the football and rugby world becomes much more attractive to the Afro-Caribbean community," said the Middlesex chief as he sat alongside other county chairmen at the first parliamentary hearing on cricket since Rafiq's bombshell evidence last November.

    "And in terms of the South Asian community, there is a moment where we're finding that they do not want necessarily to commit the same time that is necessary to go to the next step because they sometimes prefer to go into other educational fields, and then cricket becomes secondary. And part of that is because it's a rather more time-consuming sport than some others. So we're finding that's difficult."


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/01/25/middlesex-chairman-facing-backlash-outdated-claim-black-people/

    Sport should always be secondary to education. I professional sportsperson will have a career of maybe 20 years. A good education lasts for life.
    Depends how good you are, if you are an outstanding footballer or cricketer or tennis player or rugby player then you will likely earn more from professional sport than you ever would in any other field.

    If you are only average or crap at sport, education is obviously far more important as you have zero chance of a professional sports career but your education level will likely determine your future earnings. You can still play sport for fun or fitness but grades come first
    As I noted down thread, "outstanding" tennis. It isn't true. I think most people would say 150th in the world is outstanding, after all your expenses you won't basically take any money at all. Tennis is one of the most top heavy sports going, Nadal, Novax, Federer makes £10 millions a year, Liam Broady (128th in the world) has to have a lodger to pay the rent on his flat.

    Cricket, if you only make it to county cricket, again, no you will be on crap money. Minimum county cricket salary is £24k a year. Its only if you make it to international or IPL level that you can make real money.
    This is true for most sports. Don’t forget sponsorship though. County cricketers etc get a car, free bats and kit etc. They will also expect to get a benefit season towards the end, useful for setting up the next stage of their lives.
    I note Brady has career earnings north of 1,000,000 dollars. Letting out the flat you don’t need while globe trotting is just sound business.
    Cricketers getting free bats, while being paid £25k a year woophie. Its why so many have to have a second job of some sort (be it more cricket or other off season income). Also making it through 10 years of county cricket is far from a certainty. And its a pretty shitty life constantly on the road living out of budget hotels.

    As for Broady, as explained, his expenses are vast and sponsorship small. I don't have the video link to hand, but he explains if he doesn't win a round at one of the grand slams in a year, he can't pay for his strength and conditioning coach. He spends £12k a year out of his own pocket on restring-ing his rackets alone. The constant travel for tennis is eye wateringly expensive, without the sort of income that say golf can provide.

    I think he says from that $1m, he has made about $100k....in 10 years.
    Yes, to be clear I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The top end really distorts perceptions about how much money sport pays.
    Yes and no. Tennis is problematic because if you are 100th in the world, you play basically always play the top guys in R1 and go home with no money.

    Something like golf, the base is much wider in terms of pay outs, but also you don't have to beat the World #1 to make any money. You can be 200-300th (even lower) in the world at golf and be earning a very decent living.
    I’m sure you are right, but don’t they have similar issues re coaches, caddy, constant travel etc too? But yes it does seem easier to earn at a lower level.
    take the 100th best at a sport in the world--

    Golf - millionaire perhaps ? 6 figure earnings annually
    Tennis - Not far away from golf
    Athletics - relying on a 20-30k a year UK sport grant probably
    Snooker - on the breadline
    Darts - is a postman/builder
    Cricket -60k a year playing as a senior pro at county/state level?
    Football - multi milliionaire ,fawned by fans earning 7 figure sums annually .

    Always be a footballer!!

    100th best golfer in the world is winning several million a year.

    The 100th best tennis player is winning more like $100-200k, before massive expenses.

    Cricket, its £25k a year base salary for a country cricketer. Senior pros will be lucky to be £60k. Its why guns for hire for world T20 leagues is such a popular job.
    100% agree with all of that.

    When I was in Dubai a few years ago, I organized a tennis lesson at my hotel. The guy who taught me was filling in for a month or so between tournaments, and was 120th or so in the World.

    He told me that it was a pretty difficult life, sleeping on peoples' floors, travelling super cheap, and you had to make it up by teaching rich assholes tennis. And you did it for the one tournament a year where you made it to the quarter finals, and earned $25k.
    I once met a tennis pro in Nottingham. He was playing at the Nottingham tournament. He had got off the London train in Beeston at the same time as me and asked me the way to his hotel, which was a fairly horrible looking one up on the main road - though I have no reason to suspect it was anything but clean and comfortable. He, too, turned out to be around 150th in the world.

    The 100th best cricketer in the world will probably be playing in the IPL or on the fringes of the test circuit. Team games by their nature tend to support far more professionals than individual sports.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,208
    edited January 26
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Wordle time....

    Have you tried this one? 6 letter wordle.
    http://bronze-age.com/worgle/
    Not sure that works as well, due to more limited possibilities. I just did that one in 3, because basically there was only 1 word that i could make given i had 1 yellow and 1 green after 2 attempts.

    Where as OG wordle, i took 5 today, despite having 3 green after 3 guesses, as still a number of possible options.
    I got to 5 green after three guesses and still took it to round 5!
    Couldn't resist having a go at this for the first time given all the hype. A descendent of Mastermind it seems.

    Took me 4 guesses, though that was using easy mode (is that how everyone plays?).

    Some statistical analysis of 5 letter words might help but would probably destroy the fun...a bit like learning all the nonsense 2 and 3 letter words for Scrabble.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,374

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Wordle time....

    Have you tried this one? 6 letter wordle.
    http://bronze-age.com/worgle/
    Not sure that works as well, due to more limited possibilities. I just did that one in 3, because basically there was only 1 word that i could make given i had 1 yellow and 1 green after 2 attempts.

    Where as OG wordle, i took 5 today, despite having 3 green after 3 guesses, as still a number of possible options.
    I got to 5 green after three guesses and still took it to round 5!
    Couldn't resist having a go at this for the first time given all the hype. A descendent of Mastermind it seems.

    Took me 4 guesses, though that was using easy mode (is that how everyone plays?).

    Some statistical analysis of 5 letter words might help but would probably destroy the fun...a bit like learning all the nonsense 2 and 3 letter words for Scrabble.
    I play in easy mode - though I try not to reuse ruled-out letters.

    No need to know too much in the way of obscure words - there aren't that many obscure words in it. I think the list of words to come up is only about 2,000 long, and it only 'knows' about 10,000 words.

    You are right about the Mastermind comparison. I recently looked Mastermind up on Wikipedia - the maths behind an ideal game was quite interesting, though only read if you never intend to play the game again.

    The most innovative thing about it is that you can only play once a day. That sort of restraint engenders an interest which will long outlast the life it would have had if you could have just played it at will. Football can learn a lot from this.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited January 26
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The racism furore in county cricket has reignited after the chairman of Middlesex expressed "outdated" stereotypes on why cricket is failing to nurture black and Asian talent.

    Azeem Rafiq and Ebony Rainford-Brent expressed outrage after Mike O'Farrell told MPs young black players prefer football and south Asian communities prioritise education.

    O'Farrell's comments were immediately likened with the career-ending words of former FA chairman Greg Clarke, who told the same committee in 2020 that south Asian people choose careers in IT over sport.

    "The other thing in the diversity bit is that the football and rugby world becomes much more attractive to the Afro-Caribbean community," said the Middlesex chief as he sat alongside other county chairmen at the first parliamentary hearing on cricket since Rafiq's bombshell evidence last November.

    "And in terms of the South Asian community, there is a moment where we're finding that they do not want necessarily to commit the same time that is necessary to go to the next step because they sometimes prefer to go into other educational fields, and then cricket becomes secondary. And part of that is because it's a rather more time-consuming sport than some others. So we're finding that's difficult."


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/01/25/middlesex-chairman-facing-backlash-outdated-claim-black-people/

    Sport should always be secondary to education. I professional sportsperson will have a career of maybe 20 years. A good education lasts for life.
    Depends how good you are, if you are an outstanding footballer or cricketer or tennis player or rugby player then you will likely earn more from professional sport than you ever would in any other field.

    If you are only average or crap at sport, education is obviously far more important as you have zero chance of a professional sports career but your education level will likely determine your future earnings. You can still play sport for fun or fitness but grades come first
    As I noted down thread, "outstanding" tennis. It isn't true. I think most people would say 150th in the world is outstanding, after all your expenses you won't basically take any money at all. Tennis is one of the most top heavy sports going, Nadal, Novax, Federer makes £10 millions a year, Liam Broady (128th in the world) has to have a lodger to pay the rent on his flat.

    Cricket, if you only make it to county cricket, again, no you will be on crap money. Minimum county cricket salary is £24k a year. Its only if you make it to international or IPL level that you can make real money.
    This is true for most sports. Don’t forget sponsorship though. County cricketers etc get a car, free bats and kit etc. They will also expect to get a benefit season towards the end, useful for setting up the next stage of their lives.
    I note Brady has career earnings north of 1,000,000 dollars. Letting out the flat you don’t need while globe trotting is just sound business.
    Cricketers getting free bats, while being paid £25k a year woophie. Its why so many have to have a second job of some sort (be it more cricket or other off season income). Also making it through 10 years of county cricket is far from a certainty. And its a pretty shitty life constantly on the road living out of budget hotels.

    As for Broady, as explained, his expenses are vast and sponsorship small. I don't have the video link to hand, but he explains if he doesn't win a round at one of the grand slams in a year, he can't pay for his strength and conditioning coach. He spends £12k a year out of his own pocket on restring-ing his rackets alone. The constant travel for tennis is eye wateringly expensive, without the sort of income that say golf can provide.

    I think he says from that $1m, he has made about $100k....in 10 years.
    Yes, to be clear I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The top end really distorts perceptions about how much money sport pays.
    Yes and no. Tennis is problematic because if you are 100th in the world, you play basically always play the top guys in R1 and go home with no money.

    Something like golf, the base is much wider in terms of pay outs, but also you don't have to beat the World #1 to make any money. You can be 200-300th (even lower) in the world at golf and be earning a very decent living.
    I’m sure you are right, but don’t they have similar issues re coaches, caddy, constant travel etc too? But yes it does seem easier to earn at a lower level.
    take the 100th best at a sport in the world--

    Golf - millionaire perhaps ? 6 figure earnings annually
    Tennis - Not far away from golf
    Athletics - relying on a 20-30k a year UK sport grant probably
    Snooker - on the breadline
    Darts - is a postman/builder
    Cricket -60k a year playing as a senior pro at county/state level?
    Football - multi milliionaire ,fawned by fans earning 7 figure sums annually .

    Always be a footballer!!

    100th best golfer in the world is winning several million a year.

    The 100th best tennis player is winning more like $100-200k, before massive expenses.

    Cricket, its £25k a year base salary for a country cricketer. Senior pros will be lucky to be £60k. Its why guns for hire for world T20 leagues is such a popular job.
    100% agree with all of that.

    When I was in Dubai a few years ago, I organized a tennis lesson at my hotel. The guy who taught me was filling in for a month or so between tournaments, and was 120th or so in the World.

    He told me that it was a pretty difficult life, sleeping on peoples' floors, travelling super cheap, and you had to make it up by teaching rich assholes tennis. And you did it for the one tournament a year where you made it to the quarter finals, and earned $25k.
    Did he look you in the eye when he said “rich arsehole” credit to him if he did. 🙂

    My brother has a tennis court, but he hasn’t a clue about tennis, he thought it was first to six.
    It took longer convincing him he had not just won six five than playing the set! 🙄
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,208
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Wordle time....

    Have you tried this one? 6 letter wordle.
    http://bronze-age.com/worgle/
    Not sure that works as well, due to more limited possibilities. I just did that one in 3, because basically there was only 1 word that i could make given i had 1 yellow and 1 green after 2 attempts.

    Where as OG wordle, i took 5 today, despite having 3 green after 3 guesses, as still a number of possible options.
    I got to 5 green after three guesses and still took it to round 5!
    Couldn't resist having a go at this for the first time given all the hype. A descendent of Mastermind it seems.

    Took me 4 guesses, though that was using easy mode (is that how everyone plays?).

    Some statistical analysis of 5 letter words might help but would probably destroy the fun...a bit like learning all the nonsense 2 and 3 letter words for Scrabble.
    I play in easy mode - though I try not to reuse ruled-out letters.

    No need to know too much in the way of obscure words - there aren't that many obscure words in it. I think the list of words to come up is only about 2,000 long, and it only 'knows' about 10,000 words.

    You are right about the Mastermind comparison. I recently looked Mastermind up on Wikipedia - the maths behind an ideal game was quite interesting, though only read if you never intend to play the game again.

    The most innovative thing about it is that you can only play once a day. That sort of restraint engenders an interest which will long outlast the life it would have had if you could have just played it at will. Football can learn a lot from this.
    Yes, the idea of once a day is a perfect format for social media and prevents it being 'worked out' too quickly. Too much of a good thing is just...too much.

    Similar to filling in a crossword in a paper as opposed to having a collection in a book. Writing on the daily paper just seems to be the correct aesthetic somehow.

    I guess this is the online equivalent, with about the right time commitment for the age where a lot of commutes take 20 seconds.
  • PensfoldPensfold Posts: 167
    It has been said that only fixed penalties will arise from any Downing Street gatherings.

    A fixed penalty is issued by the police for minor offences and isn't classed as a criminal conviction. If you pay the fine on time, that's the end of the matter and all liability for the offence is discharged. It will not form part of a criminal record.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:



    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway

    Rather like being insufficiently Conservative? In another era, you'd have had a great career in the Spanish Inquisition, seeking out the insufficiently fervent with awesome dedication.
    The Spanish Inquisition was one thing we got rid of by creating the Church of England :smile: . Though technically it existed in Spain, a far off country a long way away.

    Though I think Hyufd here is somewhat underplaying the traditional CofE view that there is a pastoral responsibility to all inhabitants of the parish :wink: .
    HYUFD is the sort of person who would be a loyal defender of any despotic right wing regime. There are always supplicant defenders of the elite.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,109

    HYUFD embracing a big tent approach.... atheists and socially liberal types need not apply.

    I would not want to be in his tent anyway...
    Just as well, since it’s a one-man tent and already full.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,112
    The Tories have a solid working majority & are behind in the polls. If Johnson goes there will be no immediate election.

    The conditions that led to early elections in 2017 (big Con poll lead) & 2019 (hung parliament w/ major legislative deadlock) simply are not there.


    https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1486122501621092353?s=20
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,445
    Aslan said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:



    No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.

    If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway

    Rather like being insufficiently Conservative? In another era, you'd have had a great career in the Spanish Inquisition, seeking out the insufficiently fervent with awesome dedication.
    The Spanish Inquisition was one thing we got rid of by creating the Church of England :smile: . Though technically it existed in Spain, a far off country a long way away.

    Though I think Hyufd here is somewhat underplaying the traditional CofE view that there is a pastoral responsibility to all inhabitants of the parish :wink: .
    HYUFD is the sort of person who would be a loyal defender of any despotic right wing regime. There are always supplicant defenders of the elite.
    That is an appalling thing to say.

    I would hope that HYUFD wouldn't need to defend the regime, because he'd have a good position in it.
This discussion has been closed.