The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

A couple of more general points having watched Question Time last night:

If this Andrew Mitchell case is as it seems (and it's worth bearing in mind the chief constables involved want to explain why they didn't pursue disciplinary action, so there may be more to it) then it's an absolute disgrace. I know he's a guy it's hard to like, but he's had his career at best seriously set-back, and it one point it looked like ruined, because of lies.

Also, Germa...Bonnie Greer is an idiot.

[Prufrock]

You're like Michael Howard - just tell us what you think the law should be! We know it's difficult and we won't hold you to it. The system has to commit to something, so it's a bit rich for you to criticise it when you're not prepared to!

Michael Howard?! How very dare you!

Not really! I just think that, much better than someone of the internet picking numbers out of his head, or politicians getting together and having a reckon, would be to get some folk who know what they are talking about to set them (there are countless studies done on the development of the child and adolescent brain and when rationality develops. Ask them! My main point is there shouldn't be a drop-off cliff.

If it makes you happy though, then as above. Can't be criminally liable/consent:Under 13; Presumption can't: 13-16. Treated as adults with usual burden on prosecution: 16+

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Fair enough. It sounds like a rich seam of work for criminal barristers rebutting or confirming presumptions... and to think I used to think you were uncommercial!

[thebish]

Fair enough. It sounds like a rich seam of work for criminal barristers rebutting or confirming presumptions... and to think I used to think you were uncommercial!

oof!! it's really kicking off now!!

[Bijou Bob]

Aye but probably only because they're both billing the time to legal aid

[thebish]

Jonathan Aitken has a book out about Maggie Thatcher... in it he describes her as "phoney, bullying, obnoxious, hypocritical, deplorable, unpleasant, alienating, opportunistic, confrontational, monomaniacal, disloyal, dysfunctional, snarky, pedestrian, hesitant, insufferably rude, foolish, arrogant, grudge-bearing and an anachronistic bigot" - and he was a friend of hers!

[Bruce Rioja]

Jonathan Aitken has a book out about Maggie Thatcher... in it he describes her as "phoney, bullying, obnoxious, hypocritical, deplorable, unpleasant, alienating, opportunistic, confrontational, monomaniacal, disloyal, dysfunctional, snarky, pedestrian, hesitant, insufferably rude, foolish, arrogant, grudge-bearing and an anachronistic bigot" - and he was a friend of hers!

Did he have his trusty sword of truth with him at the time?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Jonathan Aitken has a book out about Maggie Thatcher... in it he describes her as "phoney, bullying, obnoxious, hypocritical, deplorable, unpleasant, alienating, opportunistic, confrontational, monomaniacal, disloyal, dysfunctional, snarky, pedestrian, hesitant, insufferably rude, foolish, arrogant, grudge-bearing and an anachronistic bigot" - and he was a friend of hers!

A friend? Not after her dumped her daughter Carol I suspect. She blocked him from cabinet and he only got there under Major.

[thebish]

Jonathan Aitken has a book out about Maggie Thatcher... in it he describes her as "phoney, bullying, obnoxious, hypocritical, deplorable, unpleasant, alienating, opportunistic, confrontational, monomaniacal, disloyal, dysfunctional, snarky, pedestrian, hesitant, insufferably rude, foolish, arrogant, grudge-bearing and an anachronistic bigot" - and he was a friend of hers!

A friend? Not after her dumped her daughter Carol I suspect. She blocked him from cabinet and he only got there under Major.

indeed - but he was (note - I didn't say "is" - it's a tense thing) a friend of hers.

[Bruce Rioja]

Please can one of you explain current academia to me?

What's meant by 'Free school'?

What's an 'Academy'?

Cleggy's on about children only being taught by 'qualified teachers'. Shirley to fecking goodness no-one gets to teach children unless they hold all the relevant qualifications, no?

[bwfcdan94]

My school was one of many local school to be made an "academy" in recent years Bruce. In essence it means that the school receives direct funding from the government rather than having to go through the usual channels of the local council. Furthermore academies are given much more room to breath in terms of what they teach and teachers have a lot more leeway and therefore don't strictly have to stick to the curriculum if they don't want to although they obviously have a duty to help students prepare for exams.

[thebish]

Please can one of you explain current academia to me?

What's meant by 'Free school'?

Cleggy's on about children only being taught by 'qualified teachers'. Shirley to fecking goodness no-one gets to teach children unless they hold all the relevant qualifications, no?

your lot decided we should have "free schools" - ie schools that are not under the aegis of the Local Education authority... anyone can set one up - a group of parents, a charity, religious nut-jobs, businesses... (they should be not-for-profit)

they can set their own curriculum and their teachers and heads don't have to be qualified... they can decide teachers pay - how long the term is - how long the school day is etc...

the govt funds them directly - ie. not through the LEA.


from the Dept. of Education website:

Free Schools do not have to employ teachers with Qualified Teacher Status (although certain specialist posts will still require QTS). Instead, Free Schools have the freedom to appoint the people they believe are best equipped to deliver their unique educational vision, for example an experienced instructor or lecturer from a further education institution. Ensuring the highest quality of teaching is paramount to the success of each school.

[Bruce Rioja]

My lot? The Textile Institute came up with that? I'll have a word, it's a fecking nonsense.

Many thanks for the explanations, chaps.

[bwfcdan94]

Please can one of you explain current academia to me?

What's meant by 'Free school'?

Cleggy's on about children only being taught by 'qualified teachers'. Shirley to fecking goodness no-one gets to teach children unless they hold all the relevant qualifications, no?

your lot decided we should have "free schools" - ie schools that are not under the aegis of the Local Education authority... anyone can set one up - a group of parents, a charity, religious nut-jobs, businesses... (they should be not-for-profit)

they can set their own curriculum and their teachers and heads don't have to be qualified... they can decide teachers pay - how long the term is - how long the school day is etc...

the govt funds them directly - ie. not through the LEA.


from the Dept. of Education website:

Free Schools do not have to employ teachers with Qualified Teacher Status (although certain specialist posts will still require QTS). Instead, Free Schools have the freedom to appoint the people they believe are best equipped to deliver their unique educational vision, for example an experienced instructor or lecturer from a further education institution. Ensuring the highest quality of teaching is paramount to the success of each school.

God those free schools sound like a horrendous idea so in essence with the right financial I could set up a school, that is worrying.

[Bruce Rioja]

Just wondering what little Englanders such as Hoboh make of the £800m Chinese led investment into Manchester Airport and the subsequent creation of 16,000 jobs as well as the bolstering to Bolton Council's coffers?

[mrkint]

[Prufrock]

All this talk of energy companies needing to 'justify' their prices. Am I missing something? Is there any other reason than 'because their duty is to maximise profits for their shareholders'?

There may be cause for complaints when it comes to price-fixing or accusations that there is a cartel, but you can't privatise something, hoping to bring the 'efficiency of the private sector' and then complain when private companies act like private companies and prioritise profit over 'the national good'.

[boltonboris]

But, in 'normal' business, if you start charging more for the exact same service, you have to justify it to your customers... But because everybody needs energy, they don't feel they have to.

They do. Like everybody else would.

If I phoned one of my customers and said "as of next quarter, your charges are going to be higher".

They'd say either "Oh why's that, then?" or more likely "Fvck off".

But because they're all in it together, they're all doing it to make sure people don't jump ship.

Unethical collusion is normally illegal. But in this case, they're not on their own.

Cough *tory theives* Cough

[Prufrock]

I don't disagree that's its highly suspicious that 90-odd per cent of our homes are supplied by six companies who each independently put up their prices by the same amount at the same time every time. If there is foul play (and their argument that they are all affected to the same degree by the same external factors doesn't sound wholly unplausible either) then that's what we should be concentrating on. They have a duty to compete, not to give cheap energy to everyone for the national good.

[Bruce Rioja]

Cough *tory theives* Cough