British Politics Thread.

[CoffeeGrunt]

We'll see if it matters. To be honest, it probably won't.

[Al Shut]

I'm pretty sure America would be more than eager to throw down against Russia, and with all that thrown on the table, our measly assets don't really matter.

Depends on who will win in November

[Denzark]

It will only not matter if everyone - potential adversaries, current allies, and the British electorate - all ignore Corbyn. Here's hoping - its episodes like this that shows that what he merits.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Sadly, the Conservatives have been downright propagandist (https://www.facebook.com/conservatives/videos/10154162238864279/?pnref=story) about the whole affair. Ominous music, sound bites, and SCARY RED TEXT? Yup, that's a reasonable, factual video.

[Denzark]

It is factual up until the last statement, which is opinion. Is it reasonable?If there were a metric of country safety and conservatives could score higher on it then it is reasonable I suppose. I don't think this is in response to this particular affair that started this little discussion - given that Daesh is not a nation state so their attacks are unlikely to result in NATO article 5 being invoked.

It is quite amusing as propaganda though.

[Wolfshade]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cprai0wXgAAXlbO.jpg

[Psychosplodge]

Imagine if Chamberlain had fronted up to Adolf, how many lives would have been saved?

Read "the war thhat came early" series by Harry Turtledove, interesting take on the Allies starting the war in '38.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Read "the war thhat came early" series by Harry Turtledove, interesting take on the Allies starting the war in '38.

Reading the synopsis, it seems to be, "everyone went evil except America," at least up 'til the third book.

Britain and France allying with Germany, Poland allying with Germany. It's interesting that the Battle of Midway goes against the US though, as that was pretty much the point where the Japanese lost it all.

An interesting take on alt-history though.

[Psychosplodge]

All his series basically have that as the core concept.
He's got several series that follow the same sort of format, but they always explore an interesting idea in history.
There's one that follows a confederate south victory all the way through to the end of WW2. That's a good read, I would have been interested to see that one continue to the cold war.
There's one with an alien invasion mid WW2, and extends to somepoint in the future.
One with an extra continent in the atlantic.
And at least a couple of others I've got.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Hmmm, sounds pretty interesting. Still not as good alt-universe as Wolfenstein. :P

[Psychosplodge]

lols. Zombie ****s? :rolleyes:

[CoffeeGrunt]

lols. Zombie ****s? :rolleyes:

Nah, was thinking more about New Order. :P

[Psychosplodge]

We're currently in the lead up to a council by election.
The labour candidate lives around twenty miles away(infact people that live there would probably say they don't live in Sheffield). For a council election.
This is the same labour party that normally criticises the Tory candidate being located 6-7 miles away.
An ex-labour councillor has distributed flyers asking people to vote for the libdem candidate as she is based in the ward and has a track record of supporting the local area.

[Denzark]

Ah, tactical voting. Love it.

[Psychosplodge]

Its genuinely amazed me, literally every piece of literature the labour party sent in the last elections pointed out the rival candidates that didn't live in the ward, and now they're standing possibly the furthest away candidate I've ever had the option to vote far.

[Psychosplodge]

oops (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/23/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-had-a-seat-during-train-journey-he-claime/)

[Denzark]

I just came on to ask how Corbyn fans were going to spin this. For those who can't be arsed with the link - or want to challenge the DT story as tory propaganda - Corbyn takes a train journey. He then upholds his principles by sitting on the floor and not taking a first class seat. He then sends out tweets and all that crap about the train being overcrowded (he wants to re-nationalise BR).

However...

Being a Virgin Train, Richard Branson don't like this.

So he publishes the train's CCTV... which shows Corbyn actually had a seat, not in first class, for the larger part of his journey - and indeed confirms that there was unrserved free seats in cattle class for his whole journey...

Sometimes Big Brother is worth it....

[CoffeeGrunt]

Unfortunate, but one has to wonder why a company has released a security tape, not to mention it being a rail company that just happens to want to disprove the credibility of a candidate who wants to nationalise the rail network. :)

People have noted that his claim was that there weren't any free seats available to the public, and the rest were first class or reserved. Doesn't necessarily mean he was in the right, but it feels like a slow news day that everyone's running with this.

[Denzark]

I don't wonder why they released the tape - he has been disingenuous at best, a lying turd at worst and has directly criticized the company - they merely showed the proof refuting it.

Also, it is entirely reasonable for Virgin as profit making capitalists in a free market to not want to be nationalised.

The funny thing is I see the national rail as strategically critical infrastructure and I would nationalise it myself!

[Psychosplodge]

Don't forget he already had a camera crew with him. They could have easily found a genuinely overcrowded train and been honest. Now he looks just as dishonest as any other politician.

[Mr Mystery]

Passengers who were on the train are begging to differ...

[Psychosplodge]

There's literal video.

[Mr Mystery]

Seems the passengers are saying the video is post-boarding, and after many had gotten off at their destination.

Is it true? I dunno.

But hey, if he did make it up, he's clearly the biggest illegitimate in Parliament. I mean lying throughout the EU ref, lying about WMDs, systematic covering up of paedophilic indiscretions, dodgy dealings with Rupert Murdoch (a non-UK citizen) during 'private' meetings, dog whistle racism, doing all you can to enrich the wealthy whilst blaming the poorest, leaving whole regions to rot as long as London does alright, they're nothing. Nothing I tells ya to possibly having not told the truth about a packed or not packed train, yeah?

[Psychosplodge]

No, because apparently it was a direct service. There was no stops between London and York.

If it's as the video shows it shows he's no different to the rest. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Psychosplodge]

Oh dear.
Smith decides to ignore vast numbers of the labour voting public, then insults their intelligence "they didn't know what they were doing voting to leave the EU"
*slow claps*
Between the two of them they're determined to give the Tories free reign.

[Mr Mystery]

Well, given Gove, Farage and BoJo lied through their teeth then weren't seen for dust as soon as the vote was determined, I think the man has a point.

I can't think of a single major point raised by Leave that was actually realistic.

Control of borders? Not if we wan to remain in the Single Market.

No more EU rules - see above.

We can have our cake and eat it too - no, no we can't.

The rest was just dog whistle racism, blaming all the UK's ills not on feckless banks and an idiotic level of capitalism and cronyism, but on migration, despite it being well established and factually back that migrants bring a net benefit to the economy....

[Psychosplodge]

The people of Boston would seemingly disagree with you.

Or anywhere else both working class and high in immigration pretty much looking at the leave map.

Lets face it the middleclasses are largely insulated from the negative aspects - which of course effects both sides views.

If we have to obey the eu rules to remain in the single market leave that as well. It's more important to be run by our own Government. To remain now would be a sign of weakness.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Leave the single market? No offense mate, but that's going to screw everyone over to varying degrees, and sh*t rolls downhill.

- - - Updated - - -

IMO it's a dumb argument - now labelled Traingate because nothing is important if it doesn't contribute to the continual watering-down of Watergate - but here's some pointers (https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/video-proof-that-virgin-and-branson-are-lying-about-jeremy-corbyn-and-traingate/)brought up in Corbyn's defense to add to the discussion.

[Psychosplodge]

If we have to obey the EU rules without a say at the table it makes no sense to remain.
So if we're leaving, we have to leave everything, it makes no sense to do otherwise.

That video seems to cut off rather randomly half way down a carriage. I wonder why?

[CoffeeGrunt]

As someone who works with a lot of small industry, it'd kill off a lot of companies, but that doesn't matter. None of it matters. Who cares about them anyway? If it takes the economic destitution of the rest of the country just to knock London down a peg, then that's cool. It's what we voted for, I guess.

A vote to protect the little guy, but we're going to ignore the fact that the little guy will be f*cked when work goes elsewhere.
A vote to put two fingers up to the establishment, but it means the establishment now have even less oversight and more control.
A vote to regain our independence, something we already had.
A vote to stop undemocratic bodies controlling our lives, but the House of Lords still stands.

[Psychosplodge]

The house of lords served a valuable constitutional function till they packed it with life peer cronies, and could be bypassed by parliament.

- - - Updated - - -

Also why is everything ~gate? Watergate wasn't even a British scandal.

[Denzark]

I can't think of a single major point that mattered to me raised by Leave that was actually realistic in my opinion.

Control of borders? Not if we wan to remain in the Single Market.

No more EU rules - see above.

We can have our cake and eat it too - no, no we can't.

The rest was just dog whistle racism, blaming all the UK's ills not on feckless banks and an idiotic level of capitalism and cronyism, but on migration, despite it being well established and factually back that migrants bring a net benefit to the economy....

Ah MM, fixed that for you.

I don't want to crayon over this thread by rehashing arguments from the referendum thread. The fact is until Article 50 is invoked and until we are actually out and know what the negotiations go for and get - and then a reasonable period of time to turn back 40 years of rot - until all that is done we actually have no idea.

As to dishonesty, I'll just leave the thought that we are not currently in a recession, and unemployment has been going down.

Labour's problems are clearly a massive lack of understanding of what matters to people. The Tories are fortunate to be 'least worst'. They're all *******s but at least the Tories scrape through on balance of having a larger proportion of responsible policies.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Unemployment has been going down, but then it's summer, so unemployment would go down as seasonal jobs open up. The problem is permanent long-term work, and it remains to be seen whether that unemployment drop remains during winter. We're not in a recession, but the Pound is still down, and as you say, we haven't even invoked Article 50 yet, which will be the bit that really does it. You can't really say that claims leaving the EU will cause economic calamity are lies because we haven't left the EU yet and the economy is still fine.

All remains to be seen, but tbh I'm not optimistic.

[Denzark]

Remain to be seen is the key argument - as well as sufficient timescale for a fair comparison.

But then also perspective will skew an assessment of success or otherwise.

Example:

In 5 years, out of the EU, maybe we will be pushing 3% growth. Remainers will say 'we were doing fine with 1.4% in the EU - its not worth it.'

But in the short term, maybe we contract or growth shrinks. Remainers will say 'arrggh calamity' and leavers will say 'yep I'd take that on the chin totally worth it'.*

*Figures illustrative not based on science.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Worth it for what, though? It's still based on the assumption of a promised land beyond the desert. It's a faith-based argument despite the fact I don't have any faith in our government to lead us there.

[Caedes]

Nothing good has come of the brexit vote so far and there is nothing that suggests that it will once we trigger article 50. The fact that the government and bank of England had to act immediately to prevent the economy getting into a worse state post the brexit vote doesn't bode well for the future.
I would say that I also didn't hear a single argument for brexit that stood up to any kind of scrutiny. As far as I could tell it was all either outright racism, closet racism, xenophobia, nationalism, greed, stupidity, fear, hatred or outright lies.

[Denzark]

Nothing good has come of the brexit vote so far in my opinionand there is nothing that suggests to me that it will once we trigger article 50. The fact that the government and bank of England had to act immediately to prevent the economy getting into a worse state post the brexit vote doesn't bode well for the future.
I would say that I also didn't hear a single argument for brexit that stood up to any kind of scrutiny. As far as I could tell it was all either outright racism, closet racism, xenophobia, nationalism, greed, stupidity, fear, hatred or outright lies.

Caedes - I've fixed that for you.

As to what you could tell, let me offer you a narrative:

Outright/closet racism - a prejudice I find equally as offensive as the prejudice displayed against working class leave voters.

Xenophobia - if by that you mean putting your tribe first and foremost nothing wrong with that.

Nationalism - do you mean patriotism? What's wrong with that?

Greed? Do you mean capitalism? Nowt wrong with that. Do you mean wanting our country to be better off? Nowt wrong with that either. Actually many leavers acknowledged the economy would be worse off in the short term - so how was it greed?

Stupidity? Ah you're one of the prejudiced people I mentioned above.

Fear? I'll accept that - I was fearful we would not have the courage to vote out of a byzantine, unaccountable, corrupt, foreign political entity - luckily that didn't happen.

Hatred? I'm sure there was in some places. For me its merit depends if it is rational or irrational.

Outright lies - both sides put out stuff that went from disingenuous through wrong to lies.




Seriously though can we stop re-hashing this same old crap? Corbyn has been caught out acting like a true British Politician and we want to ignore that in favour of getting back on the merry-go round of EU bollocks?

I tell you what. We joined the EU in 73. Well actually the fore-runner to the EU - no one back then voted for the monster it has become. I make that 43 years ago. If in 43 years from 2 years after triggering Article 50, the country is in a worse state, I'll come backon hear and fully acknowledge all the remainers were so right.

In the mean time could we move away from the EU arguments?

Caedes are you actually a sockpuppet account?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Can I just say that I'd rather not wait 'til I'm 65 to hear that? I mean, I think I'll have bigger problems than caring whether you'll admit you were wrong by that point, especially if you were actually wrong.

Also if it takes 43 years to be sure of a decision being bad, then that's pretty appalling. I mean I have this humorous vision of the UK 42 years in the future being like downtown Mogadishu, with people saying, "wait for it, next year it'll all pay off I tell ya!" (Before you accuse me of being hysterical, that was intended as tongue-in-cheek.)

My problem isn't in the vague notions of patriotism/nationalism, (there is a difference between those,) or anything else, it's in the facts and figures, none of which supported the decision. It's done, but it isn't done, but it is.

Corbyn got caught on a train that may or may not have been packed depending on which view you trust more. I honestly don't care as it's the most tame scandal ever revealed in political history.

[Denzark]

'Facts and figures'

That word facts. Man there is some Ben Kenobi shizzle going on there. 'From a certain point of view' etc.

[Mr Mystery]

All the munneh for the NHS? J/k

Control over border? J/k

Ringing any bells? Any at all? No? Anyone? Dust? Anyone? No? Dust? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

[CoffeeGrunt]

'Facts and figures'

That word facts. Man there is some Ben Kenobi shizzle going on there. 'From a certain point of view' etc.

It depends on whether you think it's worth listening to people who handle that kind of thing daily, or think, "we've had enough of listening to experts."

Personally I wouldn't go to Joe Bloggs down the pub for analysis on my teeth nevermind the macro-economic effects of the UK removing itself from the Single Market with no actual plan for doing so. We still don't have any sign of a plan, by the way. We've set sail without anchor, pointing the boat to the horizon where the navigator assures us there will be the Land of Rich and Plenty, though it isn't on the map and he can't say where it actually is, only that it's, "roughly that way."

[CoffeeGrunt]

Farage to appear onstage at a Donald Trump rally (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37177938).

Make of that what you will.

[Psychosplodge]

He does need a new job, has a proven track record, and Trump keeps losing campaign managers....

This r/writingprompts thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingPrompts/comments/4z7qtb/wp_the_illuminati_is_actually_a_gentlemens_club/) might amuse you though CG on the subject of Trump.

[Caedes]

Caedes - I've fixed that for you.

As to what you could tell, let me offer you a narrative:

Outright/closet racism - a prejudice I find equally as offensive as the prejudice displayed against working class leave voters.

Xenophobia - if by that you mean putting your tribe first and foremost nothing wrong with that.

Nationalism - do you mean patriotism? What's wrong with that?

Greed? Do you mean capitalism? Nowt wrong with that. Do you mean wanting our country to be better off? Nowt wrong with that either. Actually many leavers acknowledged the economy would be worse off in the short term - so how was it greed?

Stupidity? Ah you're one of the prejudiced people I mentioned above.

Fear? I'll accept that - I was fearful we would not have the courage to vote out of a byzantine, unaccountable, corrupt, foreign political entity - luckily that didn't happen.

Hatred? I'm sure there was in some places. For me its merit depends if it is rational or irrational.

Outright lies - both sides put out stuff that went from disingenuous through wrong to lies.

Seriously though can we stop re-hashing this same old crap? Corbyn has been caught out acting like a true British Politician and we want to ignore that in favour of getting back on the merry-go round of EU bollocks?

I tell you what. We joined the EU in 73. Well actually the fore-runner to the EU - no one back then voted for the monster it has become. I make that 43 years ago. If in 43 years from 2 years after triggering Article 50, the country is in a worse state, I'll come backon hear and fully acknowledge all the remainers were so right.

In the mean time could we move away from the EU arguments?

Caedes are you actually a sockpuppet account?

No, I was basing my statement on the state of the economy, the exchange rate collapse and the desperate shoring up completed by the government and the bank of England so no, it isn't an opinion, it is the facts regarding what happened in the wake of the brexit vote.
If you haven't seen the racism that has been used and exposed by the brexit campaign then you must be walking round with blinkers on. Calling out racists isn't prejudice, only an idiot would call it that.
No, I use the word xenophobia as per it's dictionary definition, I would look up the meaning of the word narrative while you are there.
No, I use the word nationalism as per it's dictionary definition, see above.
No, I mean greed, Jesus, you aren't very good with the whole comprehension thing are you. Not wanting to share the opportunity that this country provides with our economic partners in the EU and not wanting to pay our fair share towards the EU are caused by greed.
Brexit regret? I know lots of people that thought they were just registering a protest vote, that was stupid. The fact that the country voted to get out of an EU that left all of us better off (as every economic expert and study showed) was also stupid.
I didn't see any courage from any of it's campaigners because not one of them stood up and told the truth about the effects of brexit.
Oh well, if hatred is rational that makes it ok!? What I saw was hatred of anything that wasn't some picture card caricature of good old blighty.
Every single promise made by the brexit campaign was a pack of lies and they knew it and then had the gall to call the remain campaign project fear. The lies that have been told by the murdoch press for years about the EU is just overwhelming, but don't worry i'm sure foreign billionaires have the interests of ordinary working people at heart! :rolleyes:
Well we don't want to think about that lie about the £350million the NHS was promised do we?
No, I am not a sockpuppet account, ooh poisoning the well, any other logical fallacies up your sleeve?

[Psychosplodge]

We have an EU referendum thread where all those points were argued over.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?68497-Should-I-stay-or-should-I-go-now-The-EU-Referendum-Thread

Basically it boiled down to the viewpoints are polarised and there's little middle ground.

[CoffeeGrunt]

We can all agree on Farage being a tw*t though, right?

[Psychosplodge]

To differing degrees I think. He's not quite the antichrist to me, and applying mystery's standards that he applied to salmond post indyref he's Britain's most successful politician. Now that's a scary thought.

[Denzark]

Calling out racists isn't prejudice, only an idiot would call it that.

Jesus, you aren't very good with the whole comprehension thing are you.

Well we don't want to think about that lie about the £350million the NHS was promised do we?

No, I am not a sockpuppet account, ooh poisoning the well, any other logical fallacies up your sleeve?

Wow Caedes you are gift that keeps giving. Seeing as you like good comprehension...

I didn't say anywhere calling out racism was a prejudice. I said racism itself both closet and outright is a prejudice. As equally offensive to me as the prejudice displayed by people who think/assume that sections of the populace voted in a particular way out of stupidity.

The NHS promise... the Brexit campaign was not a sitting government. They had no mandate to make policy. About anything. While you're in the dictionary finding things I should look up, you should acquaint yourself with the difference between a referendum and an election.

Me asking if you are a sockpuppet account is asking for a confirmation of fact - not a statement of one. So how can it be a logical fallacy?

I'm glad you are a fan of comprehension Caedes, I know many people find it easier to improve on things they are weak at when they enjoy it.

[Denzark]

It depends on whether you think it's worth listening to people who handle that kind of thing daily, or think, "we've had enough of listening to experts."

Personally I wouldn't go to Joe Bloggs down the pub for analysis on my teeth nevermind the macro-economic effects of the UK removing itself from the Single Market with no actual plan for doing so. We still don't have any sign of a plan, by the way. We've set sail without anchor, pointing the boat to the horizon where the navigator assures us there will be the Land of Rich and Plenty, though it isn't on the map and he can't say where it actually is, only that it's, "roughly that way."

I had to look up whether economics is a science or not. Wikipedia says it is a social science (whatever one of those is).

The reason I did that is because when a scientist tells me water comprises of 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, I listen to them. When they say said water boils at 100 degrees c at ground level, I also listen to them. When a mathematician says the equation for radius of a circle is pie R squared (or whatever - got a C at GCSE and will never again use maths I can't find the answer for on my iphone) I listen to them.

But economists... sheesh. Economics is affected by human factors that they don't seem to be able to predict with any reliability. The best French economist didn't predict 72% less Chinese tourists (or whatever the figure is) would visit Paris this year because he didn't know France would be drenched in terror attacks.

The only relevant figures now are those which allow us to maximise our economy as we disengage from Europe. As best as I know, the sitting government hasn't finalised plans for that and negotiated as to where the goal posts are.

To that end, economic 'experts' who didn't tell us that Lehman brothers and sub-prime mortgages would screw us in 2008, are pretty moot to me now. I anticipated a drop in the economy, could afford a drop in (my personal) economy, and think the quickest way for it to get back on track and surpass where it was, is for doom-mongers to keep their opinions under their hats.

[CoffeeGrunt]

This discussion is just going to go around in circles so, yeah. Anyway.

[Denzark]

Fair one. Anything else not already covered by the EU referendum thread worth discussing - could have been in the Mirror or the Grauniad if preferred.

[Wolfshade]

We could talk about certain Scottish ministers wanting Scotland to join the EU with a GDP deficit of 9.5% (14.8 Bn) despite guidelines saying ti should be under 3%.
Or Poland overtaking India as the most common non-UK birth country, and how that relates to Cameron's desire to reduce immigaration to 99,999 (or fewer).
Or the return of the British Bake Off...

[Al Shut]

We could talk about certain Scottish ministers wanting Scotland to join the EU with a GDP deficit of 9.5% (14.8 Bn) despite guidelines saying ti should be under 3%.

Nobody obeys that rule anyway

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's fine, we can just borrow money from Germany like the others. :P

[Al Shut]

It's spelled Germoney

[CoffeeGrunt]

That pun got me good. :P

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Government ‘has stripped Paralympians of their Motability vehicles’

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/government-has-stripped-paralympians-of-their-motability-vehicles/

[Psychosplodge]

Considering apparently the test to qualify for a blue badge is walking >20M with a walking stick(never mind how difficult it is for them to get in and out of the narrow gaps in normal parking spaces - common sense need not apply) I don't understand how anyone not wheelchair bound qualifies for either vehicles or blue badges ¬_¬.

[CoffeeGrunt]

They're also coming down hard on mental health issues as well. My uncle had to appeal getting his PIP removed after they revoked his status because 'Schizophrenia just ain't real, maaaan.'

[CoffeeGrunt]

Curious about how people see this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUO2oNz5m3I

To summarise, a father and his son appear to be filming with a camera outside a police station, filming police cars as they go past. We don't know how long they've been filming for. For reference, said police station is in the middle of an industrial estate that's mostly dilapidated, so there's not really anything to go out and film.

After approaching and questioning the man on why he is filming the police and station, they handcuff him after he refuses to tell them why he's filming, stating that he doesn't have to tell them anything. They bring him in for questioning.

So, what do people think about it? Happened in my home town, seems to be pretty much ignored and I have my own views about it.

[Psychosplodge]

I've not watched it(bandwidth issues again-also known as someone closer to the router also watching youtube). But from what you said it doesn't sound like they were technically actually doing anything wrong. However in these days of heightened security it seems exactly the sort of thing that will produce a reaction of some sort from the police to establish if they're doing something wrong.
Idk how I actually feel about that.
I'll try to remember to watch it later.

[Mr Mystery]

That's suspicious activity - especially given he refused to say why he was filming.

I know it sounds daft, but a common piece of counter terrorist advice is to keep an eye out for people filming just such things.

You could get up to various mischief with such things - recording number plates and uniform numbers to match them to specific cars could allow you to make a fake police car and uniforms far more convincing.

His whole attitude is confrontational, and I wouldn't be surprised if they set out to cause a scene. And that kid's crying is well fake. Police are open and pretty friendly. No voices raised, factual statements - given information when it's asked for.

Just another wannabe Internet Warrior trying to make a point by causing a scene.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Apparently his kid is autistic, and wanted to go see the cars. At least, that's what they're saying.

Still doesn't make sense, IMO.

[Mr Mystery]

Bollocks.

If it was that straight forward.....

1. Why not tell the police that?
2. Why film it?
3. Why be so obtrusive and obnoxious?

Note that despite the kid crying, we never actually see the kid visibly upset. Perhaps that's down to the alleged autism, but I feel it was done on cue to make some anti-police point.

I mean seriously. If you've taken your kid there to see the cars, then just tell the police that. Don't get up in their face with a farcical big man routine. You just look like an absolutely bellend.

[Denzark]

Ummm - what a crap father.

If you've got an agenda, fine - but using your child to try and advance said agenda - when the child gets upset?

Agree - total bellend.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Def one of the few times I think we can all agree on something, what an utter ****nugget to do that to your own kid.

[Psychosplodge]

Having now watched it - he's clearly gone out there looking for an altercation.

[Haighus]

Yeah, he was being deliberately obtuse and confrontational in the video. To be honest, I thought the officer was polite and did well to remain calm, despite not being able to get a word in edgeways.

[Psychosplodge]

Cradle of filth endorse Owen Smith for Labour leadership (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/cradle-of-filth-endorse-owen-smith-20160907113427)

[Denzark]

What, nothing about Keith 'Vazeline' Vaz and his shocking lack of integrity?

And it was the Mirror kicked off first I believe?

[Psychosplodge]

You mean Keith "won't someone think of the children" Vaz? Already hold him in utter contempt anyway.

[Psychosplodge]

By election to replace dead councillor, lib dems took from labour.

They had someone doing an exit poll on the polling station and when I left it there was a labour supporter giving them a verbal kicking.

Labour canvessors were claimed to be telling people to "vote labour cause it's a labour area" by new libdem counciler.
labour councillor on radio now saying people told their canvassors they weren't voting for labour run by corbyn.

[Psychosplodge]

Also did anyone watch question time last night? looks like we're having perpetual tory governments.

[Denzark]

I heard Corbyn was sublimely unruffled by any of the credible arguments that Smith raised to him...

[Psychosplodge]

Corbyn seemed divorced from reality, he literally had people in the audience telling him its the people they've lost to ukip and the tories they need to get back not the 300k new members from the far left.
And the smith guy came across poorly looking like a typical slimey oppurtunistic politican.
I'd imagine it's on iplayer if you fancy an hour shouting at the TV.

[Denzark]

When you make such a good offer I regret not seeing it until now - spent a night making final adjustments to my Space Wolves...

[Mr Mystery]

Currently torn on the selective schools debate.

On one hand, I'm proper leftie and thus against elitism and any mechanic which seeks to enforce it. 11+ isn't a bad thing as such, but that success is often linked to private tutoring, it seems kids from less affluent backgrounds are at a serious disadvantage.

On the other? I wasn't allowed to take the 11+, because when I moved to England I was too old - thus Grammar Schools (and there's many in my area!) were closed to me. This mean The Local Comp, where despite being a gifted student I was lumped amongst those not really interested in learning. Sadly, this lead to a negative effect on my own efforts - I learned quickly (still do), yet by the time the rest of the class was ready to move on, I was bored out my skull.

In short? Grammar Schools themselves are not a bad thing. But I'm far from sold on the mechanics of getting into one.

[Psychosplodge]

One of my relatives went to a grammar school, from a working class inner city estate and did well from it(uni when it meant something and chartered surveyor and early retirement). The alternative would have been an apprenticeship and into the steel mills in some form or another at that time.

I wish I'd had the option because the first three years of comp with me being bored and ignored cause they were busy dealing with the bottom of the class affected all my later education.

[Mr Mystery]

Pretty much what happened to me there 'Splodge.

So Grammars definitely do have their place - people with a natural aptitude need to be given help to develop and realise that, just as kids who need educational support for special and behavioural needs absolutely deserve it.

But when access to a Grammar favours those whose parents can afford extra tuition? I feel that's kind of missing the point. Kids need to sink or swim on their own ability, not the depths of their parent's pockets.

At the very least, have a second 11+ the following year for those who didn't make the cut first time around - kids develop at different rates, and a year can make a big old difference.

[Psychosplodge]

Yep, but as I think they said n the BBC they already have a selection by "who can afford to live in the catchment postcode" when it comes to good schools.
There's always going to be people playing the system, I mean I went to a primary school for three months as it was a feeder school to a supposedly better (it wasn't in reality just more modern buildings) comp that said they'd take me if I could get in a feeder school. Was it worth it? dunno. Suppose I probably would have gone to collage rather than sixth form, and probably wouldn't have stayed in the ATC as long as I did(cause the one closest that school spent more time on drill than running round the woods). Probably wouldn't have ever met my first longterm girlfriend. *shrugs*

[Kirsten]

grammar schools are an appalling anachronism and it is a disgrace that the tories want to bring them back. yet another attempt to divide the populace.

[Psychosplodge]

Not if they're done properly. I think they need to find a way to prevent "teaching for the selection test" so they operate as intended.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

I'd say they also need to be met with technical schools. The constant focus on academia has left us with glaring skills gaps.

[Kirsten]

they can't be done properly, they are a disaster. Ofsted are against them, teaching unions are against them. hell, my sister had an entire A level course work thing in sociology about how awful they are. grammar schools are for the elite, the haves, to look down on the have nots. that is the sum total of it. they are not for the benefit of intelligent kids. they are for posh ****ers to send their kids to to avoid the terribly common state schools.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Don't you still end up with tiers though, with some getting a much better education than others? Won't that just end up eventually reshuffling who is poor, rather than actually dealing with poverty?

I.e., assuming the better-educated people get better wages when they grow up, and that grammar schools provide a better education, surely this system will just move some poorer people into a better position but still leave some in not such a good position. And due to the increased level of education in our currently small jobs market, it means that the demands for education in job applications can be raised, making it even harder for those with a worse education to compete?

Surely the better system is to "uplift" the underperforming schools until they perform at the same level, rather than shuffling kids around the better schools?

[Kirsten]

Surely the better system is to "uplift" the underperforming schools until they perform at the same level, rather than shuffling kids around the better schools?

exactly, grammar schools are empirically bad for kids. they are for the benefit of the wealthy, nothing more. work needs to be done to improve state schools, and get everybody in to them. out of grammar schools, out of faith schools, and make sure everybody gets a fair chance.

[Psychosplodge]

The problem is then they cater to the pupils furthest behind and everyone else suffers for it. Idk about you but I could have probably took three years off till we started the GCSE courses and they started streaming us, and even then we still suffered cause if they needed an extra member of staff to deal with the bottom set who could be trusted to be left by themselves for most of a lesson? ¬_¬

[Denzark]

There's me thinking lots of people from less well off backgrounds saw grammar schools as their leg up. And that the current system in state schools, where house prices rise in good school catchment areas go up - ensuring wealth plays a factor anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Loving Kirsten's blatant classism btw.

Grammar Schools - empirically bad.

The empirical evidence is so strong that the Tories want them back - just to separate their 'class' from 'working class' - irrespective of results.

OFSTED don't want 'em. Unions don't want 'em. Ummm - the Unions loathe OFSTED - who is right then?

Kirsten's sister did a whole A-level course work of analysis - must be better than the entire Department for Education - sign her up as a consultant and make her education minister when a safe seat comes up for by-election.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Got anything to support your points other than ad hominem jabs? :)

[Psychosplodge]

Excuse the source, but we had a run of grammar school prime ministers (from both sides) between the public schoolboys(again of both sides)
That suggests they might have been doing something right at one point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_e ducation

[Mr Mystery]

There's me thinking lots of people from less well off backgrounds saw grammar schools as their leg up. And that the current system in state schools, where house prices rise in good school catchment areas go up - ensuring wealth plays a factor anyway.



And they absolutely should be this. Just as kids with special educational needs deserve the extra efforts made for them, kids at the other end of that spectrum need an environment which will help them to really achieve their potential - regardless of their background.

But, when more affluent parents can and will pay through the nose to ensure their kid passes the test, it all falls apart as a concept, and does effectively become education segregation.

Hence my two minds. There's nothing wrong with Academically Elite schooling. There's a strong need for it. But it's the application and acceptance process which has been corrupted. Until that's sorted out, what's the point?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Plus there's the cost of extracurricular activity. The kid that can afford swimming lessons outside of class is the kid we'd send to the Olympics, not the one who gets a single term of swimming a year that ends in middle school.

Inequality is a complicated problem. :/

[Mr Mystery]

That's quite the false equivalency there though.

Education is important. We've still got one of the best education systems in the world, and we've every right to be insanely proud of that.

But as Denzark said, Grammars are there for a purpose - but it's one they're just not achieving right now, because the entry requirements are being skewed by extra spending.

Each Grammar will have it's own preferred entry requirements. Some might prefer kids that score a certain level on the 11+. Now, you take a kid with natural aptitude, and they might just scrape that. Whereas a kid with a lesser aptitude is tutored to tears, and that boost puts them one point about.

Kid sans tutoring misses out, even though the kid they missed out to is going to need ongoing support from the school, affecting it's resources. That's not fair, especially if the other kid winds up unchallenged and bored in the local comp.

What a waste of a brilliant resource - both the kid and school place. The knock on effect that can have for a family and wider society can't be underestimated.

[Haighus]

There's me thinking lots of people from less well off backgrounds saw grammar schools as their leg up. And that the current system in state schools, where house prices rise in good school catchment areas go up - ensuring wealth plays a factor anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Loving Kirsten's blatant classism btw.

Grammar Schools - empirically bad.

The empirical evidence is so strong that the Tories want them back - just to separate their 'class' from 'working class' - irrespective of results.

OFSTED don't want 'em. Unions don't want 'em. Ummm - the Unions loathe OFSTED - who is right then?

Kirsten's sister did a whole A-level course work of analysis - must be better than the entire Department for Education - sign her up as a consultant and make her education minister when a safe seat comes up for by-election.

I don't think the government (in general, not just the current one) is very good at using evidence to back up it's policy decisions, which is a significant part of why I advocate that the NHS becomes an entirely evidence-based institution protected from government meddling. How many government pilot studies have been run, only to have their results ignored and the policy change happen anyway? Rather a lot unfortunately.

[Denzark]

Got anything to support your points other than ad hominem jabs? :)

This is what wikipedia says ad hominem is:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

With the exception of calling her a classist - she is (she made a comment 'posh wankers' above which is how I evidence that claim) - where do my comments attack character, motive or other attribute rather than attacking the substance of the argument?

I fully concede to using sarcasm - not the most effective or mature debating tool - but, if you can't pick the gist of what I was saying out, I'll try and strip it out point by point:

Kirsten says Grammar schools are empirically bad. I have highlighted that it makes no sense for that to be the case, because that would mean those that do want them back, want them back only because it would separate the classes, not ensure results effectiveness.

As Kirsten mentioned neither OFSTED nor the Unions want Grammar schools, I pointed out that the teaching unions don't like OFSTED. This highlights that not every group can be correct all the time - being an official body to do with education doesn't automatically give your views legitimacy.

Kirsten mentions her sister's A-level sociology course. My comment is that it is a bit silly to assume that the course content of an A-level course is more knowledgeable than the instigaters of government policy.

Is that clearer?

[Kirsten]

oh no, pointless ****stain Denzark doesn't like something, whatever shall I do?

they are clearly very bad. why the hell would the teaching union and ofsted agreeing on something somehow make it wrong? the government regularly ignores evidence when policy making. look at the drugs policy. Grammar schools are an awful idea, they achieve nothing positive at all. State schools have roughly 18% of their students receiving free school meals. grammar schools? less than 2% of their students receive free meals. why? because they are overwhelmingly from wealthy, privileged backgrounds. we know this is a fact. bringing them back will lead to a greater class divide and continue the shocking trend of increasing the wage gap between people like the tories, and everyone else.

[Denzark]

oh no, pointless ****stain Denzark doesn't like something, whatever shall I do?


Is that an ad hominem jab CoffeeGrunt?

[Haighus]

I think goverments often make changes for the sake of making a change and producing a "legacy" of some kind. Often this is not something that turns out to be a good idea (the wave 1 pilot studies for the NHS which already show that 7-day GPs opening on a Sunday is pretty much pointless1), sometimes it does turn out ok (CCGs seem to be functioning as a system). As I pointed out before, governments are very willing to ignore evidence if it doesn't suit their agenda.

1. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/pmcf-wv-one-eval-report.pdf

[Psychosplodge]

Not impressed with the proposed boundary changes, Area I live in is being lopped off the south east Sheffield one and being stuck on some random assortment of bits of south yorkshire/derbyshire/nottinghamshire with little in common and under different authorities. I imagine the rest are equally ill considered.

[Mr Mystery]

Or plain make it up - see Nigel Farage's 'breaking point' poster. Or pretty much all the promises made by Vote Leave.

The education system just isn't the place for advancing any given political agenda. We need something like Grammar schools, just as we need Special Needs Schools, because 'one-size-fits-all' just can't be applied.

All we need to do is remove the issue of affluence affecting who goes where. That gets you closer to social mobility, and helps to ensure the precious resource that are the kids of the nation (oh dear god, how Right On 80's does that read?) isn't wasted or squandered.

I mean, look at GCSE Maths. I was good at that. Have always been good with numbers. Yet I've not used most of what I was taught since - it was arguably too specialised. But what of those who struggle with Maths? Who can't see the point? Why are we teaching them pure theory? Why aren't Schools able to frame it in real-world terms? Explain where Maths appears in life (everywhere, pretty much). Electricians, Builders, Carpenters, IT Engineers all make heavy use of Maths, albeit at a relatively straight forward level (sand to cement ratios etc, and why they're really important to get right if like, you don't want that thing you just built to fall over).

Likewise English. Is it more important that people can read, or that they're able to sit there looking all thoughtful and trying to workout the subtext? Well, that's gonna vary from person to person. Me, I've been able to read since I was four - parents did a bang up job right there. And I enjoy reading. But not everyone does. Not everyone is encouraged to read at home. So why are the books on the curriculum so mind numbingly dull and 'worthy'. From the Gov.uk Website...


•develop an appreciation and love of reading, and read increasingly challenging material independently through: •reading a wide range of fiction and non-fiction, including in particular whole books, short stories, poems and plays with a wide coverage of genres, historical periods, forms and authors, including high-quality works from English literature, both pre-1914 and contemporary, including prose, poetry and drama; Shakespeare (2 plays) and seminal world literature

Why? Why why why? I'm sure as adults we've all picked up promising books we've struggled to get through - imagine being someone not confident with their reading being asked to spot the one joke in a Shakespeare play? How off putting is that? Why not give them something else? Hell, even an autobiography of a footballer or what have you - anything that they might actually want to read??

In short? Different Strokes For Different Folks.

[Psychosplodge]

The bottom of the class we talked about that was keeping the rest of us behind? Bloody good at Design&Technology (woodwork/metalwork) But you only got an hour of that a week. They really could have done with abandoning onesize fits all education a long time ago.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup. And here comes the proper leftie in me.....no expense should be spared.

By all means, do your best to ensure there's as little financial wastage as possible, but the education of our youth isn't something to be done on a shoestring at all.

Let Teachers teach. They're trained, and for the most part really know what they're doing. A friend of mine runs a 'Marvel and Manga' club after school. She's massively over subscribed, and somehow runs that club on a tiny bursary. She's got kids reading by choice - and it's all kinds of kids, not just your average spotty little Herbert you'd expect to like that sort of thing.

It may be a medium still looked down upon, but comic books (it'll be a cold day in hell before I insist they're actually graphic novels!) have literary worth. The best ones cover surprisingly tricky subjects, and present a variety of view points.

Imagine how much more invested a kid with reading difficulties would be in a comic book adaptation of Shakespeare would be, compared to simply reading the script? You don't even need to abridge the text - comic books don't have a defined length. And they're already out there! (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Macbeth-Graphic-Novel-Original-Unabridged/dp/1906332037/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473753500&sr=1-1&keywords=shakespeare+graphic+novels). Is that not a more flexible approach?

If education reaches out to kids, gives Teachers more opportunities for 'good work, nice one, you're really coming along', then kids are more likely to be switched on in the classroom. Nobody likes being told 'not good enough, try harder'. Nobody - even at the best of times when we know damn well we didn't do as well as we could. But to be told that when you just can't engage with the subject because you find that take boring? That's crushing.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think the problem is that school is meant to give everyone roughly the same baseline knowledge to progress from. If you start specialising kids at a young age, you risk coddling them away from a tough subject they might eventually succeed at. I had no idea what I wanted to do when I grew up, which is why I picked Media Studies of all things. If I'd been sacrificing other subjects to do that from a young age, then I doubt I'd be where I am now, tbh. You also run a greater risk of children being "nudged away" from certain subjects by their teachers.

Also while I do think the reading material in high school is dull, most schools now have pretty extensive libraries you can borrow books from.

The main problem is the standardised testing, though. If everyone is being tested by the same standard on the same paper, then everyone would need to study the same things, otherwise they don't have the same chances of passing. If someone decided they really didn't want to know trigonometry, that's an aspect of the test you've lost.

By the way, a lot of the stuff that seems useless in school mathematics is essential basics for engineering. Programming also requires a thorough knowledge of Algebra and such, as well as pretty much any discipline in science. STEM needs people to know this basic maths, is what I'm getting at.

[Morgrim]

Why? Why why why? I'm sure as adults we've all picked up promising books we've struggled to get through - imagine being someone not confident with their reading being asked to spot the one joke in a Shakespeare play? How off putting is that? Why not give them something else? Hell, even an autobiography of a footballer or what have you - anything that they might actually want to read??
Unrelated, but I'm snickering at "the one joke in a Shakespeare play". The majority of the lines that aren't obvious drama are all dirty jokes. Also how the heck is he considered high class literature when the majority of the plays are all dirty jokes? And I mean really crass toilet humour jokes much of the time. I guess language and culture have shifted enough that the majority of the audience doesn't recognise them now.

[Psychosplodge]

I thought it was all dick jokes?
It's probably more only a certain section of society generally goes to watch a live Shakespeare performance and I'd assume that's why?

[Wolfshade]

From the outset I must say I went to a grammar school, the expectation was everyone would go to a red brick university. I got there without tuition or extra help.

There is a problem of elitism, about a third of my class were coached how to pass the exam to some degree or another, they all came from the same "feeder" school, so while some were taught in primary schools how do the exam, others had private tuition. It was fine for the first couple of years but when you hit GCSE that's where you noticed the difference and those who were naturally talented excelled and those who weren't didn't.

I also knew a lad who had tuition since he was in year 2, he failed all the 11 pluses in the area and his parent's just paid for him to attend a public school.

Grammar schools should not have more money thrown at them then any other school. Mine was in an "educational action zone" so received additional funding, which was perhaps completely unwarranted. But the school did mentorships and after school activities with the local comprehensive. It then won "sports college" status and got additional funding for that, and with that came additional outreach and letting community groups use our facilities.

If we accept the notion that apprenticeships are equivalent to bachelor degrees we show that academic routes and no-academic routes are equally valid, yet we have an educational system which currently teaches children the same way until they are 18. That means for those 13 years non-academic children are forced down a route and through a system which does not enable them to succeed.

Perhaps a system like in Germany would be much better, they have three types of schools:

Gymnasium - these are academic schools whose purpose is to prepare those children to attend university

Realschule - these are less academic but offer a broader range and cover much of the same stuff as the gynasium and include mandatory languages (equivalent to a USA high school diploma)

Hauptschule - these are less academic still, covering the same basic stuff as the above two but at a slower rate, but prepares it's pupils for vocational type further education and practical skills.

This system from the outside seems fairly good, the same "core" is taught in all the schools with different schools progressing at different paces. Unfortunately, the schools are ranked as top middle bottom, so there is still societal pressure to attend a gymnasium and not the hauptschule.

I am not sure 11 is the right age to split the kids into different streams but when should be? Before GCSE possibly?

Every child is different and learn things in different ways, yet we have an educational system that teaches children all the same way despite what their style of learning is or aptitude for different things.

Notionally, if you are against the "elitism" of grammar schools then are you against streaming children in different sets? Or sitting different papers. So also should we not send children with learning difficulties to the same schools?
In bottom set classes today up and down the country you will find a mix of children who are SEN (special educational needs) with those who misbehave and those who simply don't get it. It does not do any of these three groups any good to be lumped together.
Similarly, the pressures on teachers to get children the 'C' means that a child who could be pushed up from a B to an A or A to A* gets less attention than those D/Es that might get a C.

We teach to the middle which does a disservice to the brightest academic children.

So if grammar schools are to be part of the solution, we also need schools to teach children in different ways not just academic, but in vocational topics and practical topics from budgeting to baking. And let us not forget that it was the labour desire to get everyone to do a degree that basically pushed the academic only option down the school.

With my own children I would encourage them to sit the 11+ and if they failed that I would pay to send them to public school.

Unfortunately not every child is born equal and nor do they have equal opportunities and these things are very cyclic. If you don't read to your children then they will be disadvantaged and may struggle with literacy, which makes them unlikely to read to their children and so on and so forth.

Because of these compound issues you can say quite clearly, that less than 3% of grammar school entrants have free school meals, compared to the surrounding areas which is 18% but is this showing that they aren't good for equality, or are their other issues at play. Most grammar schools are old, industrial revolution era old, put on the edge of towns, but now owing to urban expansion are inner city areas, which tend also to be more deprived.
Or "Pupils are less likely to attend a grammar school if they attend primary schools with a high proportion of pupils from deprived backgrounds." it is a bit common sense you could probably make the same comment about young adults going to university.