Today I'm angry about.....

[Enoch]

Handbag.

[thebish]

In terms of its work as an interest group (ie the sort of cases it has the expertise and contacts to help with) perhaps more precisely described as promoting secularism. But yes... Hence why a case of a faith school unfairly discriminating is a case it might legitimately get involved with, whereas a different type of unlawful discrimination wouldn't be one for it to directly assist with (though no doubt the vast majority of its members would sympathise. Who wouldn't? Who is FOR unlawful discrimination against kids?!)

hmmm... on their website, they make this statement about who they are...

We work on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote Humanism, a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief. Our celebrants provide non-religious funeral, wedding, and naming ceremonies.

so - wouldn't it follow that if they are running a campaign against unfair treatment of people seeking schools admission - then they should do it for everyone (equal treatment for everyone - like their statement says they do) rather than based on whether it is a faith-school (which is what they seem to do and say they don't do - "regardless of religion or belief")?

(they do say they promote humanism, btw..)

What you can do as an interest group in a legal setting is not the same as what you campaign for as a charity. I would expect to read something on the Stonewall website along the lines of "we promote equal treatment of everyone regardless of sexuality". You wouldn't expect to see Stonewall leading a campaign against faith schools unfairly discriminating against schools on the basis of religion. WHY NOT?! YOU ARE FOR EQUAL TREATMENT FOR EVERYONE. Again, who isn't FOR equal treatment. But clearly different interest groups have different expertise (and particular passions) in different areas.

And it's not just for the obvious reason that that's not what the campaign group is for. In order to be involved in these cases, you can't just show up, you need to show you have a particular interest, basically you need to show that there is no-one else better who could argue this case. So when there is a case regarding religious discrimination, a charity that promotes a secular state and equality regardless of religious beleif will in many case be able to pass that test, they clearly have an interest. The same argument doesn't work if the case turns on unfair selection ue to catchment areas, or academic ability or any other unrelated issue.

Religious groups generally tend to claim to be "for" good. They don't get involved in every do-gooder court case. Only the ones there is a clear interest.

Like abortion.

except that this ISN'T really a faith vs secular issue and people are not being discriminated against on the basis of religion. what is happening here is that there are some schools who have extra freedoms granted by the govt to act as their own admission authorities. Some of these schools happen to be "secular" some happen to be "faith" - the common factor is the privileged position the govt gives them.

I can see why the BHA would campaign against faith schools per se... that seems firmly within their remit, but not this - this is NOT really about religious discrimination at all, it is about schools (secular and "faith") creaming off clever kids to boost their stats - something which is pretty much inevitable when you set up a system where schools compete against each other with league tables and become consumer enterprises.

this is really the BHA opportunistically having a pop at something with the word "faith" attached to it. I would think there was more integrity in the BHA also pointing this equal and entirely equivalent fault out in secular schools - the ones they are promoting - but, no, fairness in secular schools seems not to be the concern of a group campaigning for more secular schools...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Vive la revolution!

[Enoch]

Vive la revolution!

Four good, two bad?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Vive la revolution!

Four good, two bad?

That's the badger.

[Prufrock]

In terms of its work as an interest group (ie the sort of cases it has the expertise and contacts to help with) perhaps more precisely described as promoting secularism. But yes... Hence why a case of a faith school unfairly discriminating is a case it might legitimately get involved with, whereas a different type of unlawful discrimination wouldn't be one for it to directly assist with (though no doubt the vast majority of its members would sympathise. Who wouldn't? Who is FOR unlawful discrimination against kids?!)

hmmm... on their website, they make this statement about who they are...

We work on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote Humanism, a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief. Our celebrants provide non-religious funeral, wedding, and naming ceremonies.

so - wouldn't it follow that if they are running a campaign against unfair treatment of people seeking schools admission - then they should do it for everyone (equal treatment for everyone - like their statement says they do) rather than based on whether it is a faith-school (which is what they seem to do and say they don't do - "regardless of religion or belief")?

(they do say they promote humanism, btw..)

What you can do as an interest group in a legal setting is not the same as what you campaign for as a charity. I would expect to read something on the Stonewall website along the lines of "we promote equal treatment of everyone regardless of sexuality". You wouldn't expect to see Stonewall leading a campaign against faith schools unfairly discriminating against schools on the basis of religion. WHY NOT?! YOU ARE FOR EQUAL TREATMENT FOR EVERYONE. Again, who isn't FOR equal treatment. But clearly different interest groups have different expertise (and particular passions) in different areas.

And it's not just for the obvious reason that that's not what the campaign group is for. In order to be involved in these cases, you can't just show up, you need to show you have a particular interest, basically you need to show that there is no-one else better who could argue this case. So when there is a case regarding religious discrimination, a charity that promotes a secular state and equality regardless of religious beleif will in many case be able to pass that test, they clearly have an interest. The same argument doesn't work if the case turns on unfair selection ue to catchment areas, or academic ability or any other unrelated issue.

Religious groups generally tend to claim to be "for" good. They don't get involved in every do-gooder court case. Only the ones there is a clear interest.

Like abortion.

except that this ISN'T really a faith vs secular issue and people are not being discriminated against on the basis of religion. what is happening here is that there are some schools who have extra freedoms granted by the govt to act as their own admission authorities. Some of these schools happen to be "secular" some happen to be "faith" - the common factor is the privileged position the govt gives them.

I can see why the BHA would campaign against faith schools per se... that seems firmly within their remit, but not this - this is NOT really about religious discrimination at all, it is about schools (secular and "faith") creaming off clever kids to boost their stats - something which is pretty much inevitable when you set up a system where schools compete against each other with league tables and become consumer enterprises.

this is really the BHA opportunistically having a pop at something with the word "faith" attached to it. I would think there was more integrity in the BHA also pointing this equal and entirely equivalent fault out in secular schools - the ones they are promoting - but, no, fairness in secular schools seems not to be the concern of a group campaigning for more secular schools...

Nah, rubbish. If a factory pollutes a river that leads to environmental damage and human illness, the factory has caused both, but you'd only expect the RSPCA to be involved on any court case relating to the environmental damage.

To put it differently, in the imagined initial court hearing against the non-faith schools where the BHA need to show they have sufficient interest to be involved in the case, what do you suggest is their case? "Because a two-line puff piece on our website said we're generally for fairness"? Do you think that is going to cut the mustard in showing no-one else is better placed to pursue this claim? No, of course not, the BHA wouldn't be the relevant interest group.

Outside of court proceedings, I'm sure the BHA's position is that ALL schools should follow the admissions rules and shouldn't unfairly discriminate against children. In this less strictly secular context they've been involved in lots of campaigns that are humanist without being secular, such as marriage equality and protecting women visiting abortion clinics. Feel free to contact them and see what they say re: the non-faith schools, I'd be surprised if they didn't have the relevant details for groups who have pursued similar cases against non-faith schools. https://humanism.org.uk/contact-us/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

None of the above, though, is remotely relevant as to why the Govt should be banning a 4th sector group from helping families win their cases against unfair shcool's admissions. The Govt should be looking at the schools (including any non-faith schools breaking the law), not attacking the groups helping parents.

[thebish]

To put it differently, in the imagined initial court hearing against the non-faith schools where the BHA need to show they have sufficient interest to be involved in the case, what do you suggest is their case? "Because a two-line puff piece on our website said we're generally for fairness"? Do you think that is going to cut the mustard in showing no-one else is better placed to pursue this claim? No, of course not, the BHA wouldn't be the relevant interest group.

there is no rule that says that an issue can only be pursued by one interest group. their interest is that they want more secular schools (as do I, I'm not a big fan of faith-schools - that seems to be, largely, parents) - and so must support best practice in secular schools. having cheating secular schools damages their cause to have more secular schools.

this is not a faith vs secular issue - it's equally common to both - and it is not about people being discriminated against on the grounds of faith or absence of faith...

the secretary of state should welcome people pointing out breaches - I agree - banning anyone from pointing out breaches is stupid and anti-democratic

but to pretend that this BHA campaign isn't just a "have-a-pop-at-faith" opportunistic exercise and that it is actually a grand part of their fundamental interest - is a bag of horse-poo. they are dressing up an issue common to both secular and faith schools as if it were a faith-issue. it isn't. it is an issue of the freedoms govts give to certain categories of school - and an issue made inevitable by forcing schools to act in a competitive market.

[Prufrock]

To put it differently, in the imagined initial court hearing against the non-faith schools where the BHA need to show they have sufficient interest to be involved in the case, what do you suggest is their case? "Because a two-line puff piece on our website said we're generally for fairness"? Do you think that is going to cut the mustard in showing no-one else is better placed to pursue this claim? No, of course not, the BHA wouldn't be the relevant interest group.

there is no rule that says that an issue can only be pursued by one interest group. their interest is that they want more secular schools (as do I, I'm not a big fan of faith-schools - that seems to be, largely, parents) - and so must support best practice in secular schools. having cheating secular schools damages their cause to have more secular schools.

this is not a faith vs secular issue - it's equally common to both - and it is not about people being discriminated against on the grounds of faith or absence of faith...

the secretary of state should welcome people pointing out breaches - I agree - banning anyone from pointing out breaches is stupid and anti-democratic

but to pretend that this BHA campaign isn't just a "have-a-pop-at-faith" opportunistic exercise and that it is actually a grand part of their fundamental interest - is a bag of horse-poo. they are dressing up an issue common to both secular and faith schools as if it were a faith-issue. it isn't. it is an issue of the freedoms govts give to certain categories of school - and an issue made inevitable by forcing schools to act in a competitive market.

There is a rule that to pursue these sort of claims you need to have standing. In order to have standing you have to show you have a sufficient interest in proceedings. The BHA would not pass this test in the case of a non-faith school. In the same way that you or I, believing as we both do that non-faith schools should obey the rules, couldn't rock up and get involved. We don't have enough of an interest. Watch out again for Morrisettian Irony: the reason this rule exists is to stop vexatious claims by any old campaign group looking for a platform! That rule is designed to theoretically stop, for example, the BHA suing a non-faith school for breaking the rules and arguing along the lines of, "this non-faith school has broken the rules on admission, much like FAITH SCHOOLS BREAK THEM [insert rant about faith schools here].

So there isn't a rule that prevents more than one campaign group getting involved (although in practice, the involvement of another campaign group is almost certainly going to make your claim for standing fail - interest groups are allowed to take on these cases because if they didn't they otherwise wouldn't get fought) but there is a rule that would stop the BHA getting involved in cases not involving faith schools.

Outside of court though, I'm sure they'd be supportive, as I say, feel free to e-mail them. Who isn't for fighting discrimination against kids? I'm not being facetious, I'd imagine your last sentence re: schools acting in markets is something they'd entirely agree with.

[Enoch]

To put it differently, in the imagined initial court hearing against the non-faith schools where the BHA need to show they have sufficient interest to be involved in the case, what do you suggest is their case? "Because a two-line puff piece on our website said we're generally for fairness"? Do you think that is going to cut the mustard in showing no-one else is better placed to pursue this claim? No, of course not, the BHA wouldn't be the relevant interest group.

there is no rule that says that an issue can only be pursued by one interest group. their interest is that they want more secular schools (as do I, I'm not a big fan of faith-schools - that seems to be, largely, parents) - and so must support best practice in secular schools. having cheating secular schools damages their cause to have more secular schools.

this is not a faith vs secular issue - it's equally common to both - and it is not about people being discriminated against on the grounds of faith or absence of faith...

the secretary of state should welcome people pointing out breaches - I agree - banning anyone from pointing out breaches is stupid and anti-democratic

but to pretend that this BHA campaign isn't just a "have-a-pop-at-faith" opportunistic exercise and that it is actually a grand part of their fundamental interest - is a bag of horse-poo. they are dressing up an issue common to both secular and faith schools as if it were a faith-issue. it isn't. it is an issue of the freedoms govts give to certain categories of school - and an issue made inevitable by forcing schools to act in a competitive market.

There is a rule that to pursue these sort of claims you need to have standing. In order to have standing you have to show you have a sufficient interest in proceedings. The BHA would not pass this test in the case of a non-faith school. In the same way that you or I, believing as we both do that non-faith schools should obey the rules, couldn't rock up and get involved. We don't have enough of an interest. Watch out again for Morrisettian Irony: the reason this rule exists is to stop vexatious claims by any old campaign group looking for a platform! That rule is designed to theoretically stop, for example, the BHA suing a non-faith school for breaking the rules and arguing along the lines of, "this non-faith school has broken the rules on admission, much like FAITH SCHOOLS BREAK THEM [insert rant about faith schools here].

So there isn't a rule that prevents more than one campaign group getting involved (although in practice, the involvement of another campaign group is almost certainly going to make your claim for standing fail - interest groups are allowed to take on these cases because if they didn't they otherwise wouldn't get fought) but there is a rule that would stop the BHA getting involved in cases not involving faith schools.

Outside of court though, I'm sure they'd be supportive, as I say, feel free to e-mail them. Who isn't for fighting discrimination against kids? I'm not being facetious, I'd imagine your last sentence re: schools acting in markets is something they'd entirely agree with.

It's almost as though you two are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Almost.

[Hoboh]

To put it differently, in the imagined initial court hearing against the non-faith schools where the BHA need to show they have sufficient interest to be involved in the case, what do you suggest is their case? "Because a two-line puff piece on our website said we're generally for fairness"? Do you think that is going to cut the mustard in showing no-one else is better placed to pursue this claim? No, of course not, the BHA wouldn't be the relevant interest group.

there is no rule that says that an issue can only be pursued by one interest group. their interest is that they want more secular schools (as do I, I'm not a big fan of faith-schools - that seems to be, largely, parents) - and so must support best practice in secular schools. having cheating secular schools damages their cause to have more secular schools.

this is not a faith vs secular issue - it's equally common to both - and it is not about people being discriminated against on the grounds of faith or absence of faith...

the secretary of state should welcome people pointing out breaches - I agree - banning anyone from pointing out breaches is stupid and anti-democratic

but to pretend that this BHA campaign isn't just a "have-a-pop-at-faith" opportunistic exercise and that it is actually a grand part of their fundamental interest - is a bag of horse-poo. they are dressing up an issue common to both secular and faith schools as if it were a faith-issue. it isn't. it is an issue of the freedoms govts give to certain categories of school - and an issue made inevitable by forcing schools to act in a competitive market.

There is a rule that to pursue these sort of claims you need to have standing. In order to have standing you have to show you have a sufficient interest in proceedings. The BHA would not pass this test in the case of a non-faith school. In the same way that you or I, believing as we both do that non-faith schools should obey the rules, couldn't rock up and get involved. We don't have enough of an interest. Watch out again for Morrisettian Irony: the reason this rule exists is to stop vexatious claims by any old campaign group looking for a platform! That rule is designed to theoretically stop, for example, the BHA suing a non-faith school for breaking the rules and arguing along the lines of, "this non-faith school has broken the rules on admission, much like FAITH SCHOOLS BREAK THEM [insert rant about faith schools here].

So there isn't a rule that prevents more than one campaign group getting involved (although in practice, the involvement of another campaign group is almost certainly going to make your claim for standing fail - interest groups are allowed to take on these cases because if they didn't they otherwise wouldn't get fought) but there is a rule that would stop the BHA getting involved in cases not involving faith schools.

Outside of court though, I'm sure they'd be supportive, as I say, feel free to e-mail them. Who isn't for fighting discrimination against kids? I'm not being facetious, I'd imagine your last sentence re: schools acting in markets is something they'd entirely agree with.

It's almost as though you two are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Almost.

I doubt Pru holds much truck with Hymn sheets TBH

[thebish]

It's almost as though you two are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Almost.

we usually do.

the main sticking point is that Pru is usually right and I am ever so slightly righter! (Pru isn't happy about this, but really it's just the advantage of age and wisdom!)

[Enoch]

It's almost as though you two are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Almost.

we usually do.

the main sticking point is that Pru is usually right and I am ever so slightly righter! (Pru isn't happy about this, but really it's just the advantage of age and wisdom!)

You can't touch me for age.

[thebish]

It's almost as though you two are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Almost.

we usually do.

the main sticking point is that Pru is usually right and I am ever so slightly righter! (Pru isn't happy about this, but really it's just the advantage of age and wisdom!)

You can't touch me for age.

I pick my battles!

[Bruce Rioja]

Don't know if 'angry' is the right word, but anyway, I learned this morning that one of my lifelong bezzies since the age of 5, who was also my best man, has been diagnosed with Cancer. So our shithouse football club and every corrupt, double-dealing, selfish 4ucker associated with its demise can all go 4uck themselves just now.

[Worthy4England]

Don't know if 'angry' is the right word, but anyway, I learned this morning that one of my lifelong bezzies since the age of 5, who was also my best man, has been diagnosed with Cancer. So our shithouse football club and every corrupt, double-dealing, selfish 4ucker associated with its demise can all go 4uck themselves just now.

Hope the prognosis is good mate. The gut wrenching when the missus had it a few years back is just awful.

[Gary the Enfield]

Don't know if 'angry' is the right word, but anyway, I learned this morning that one of my lifelong bezzies since the age of 5, who was also my best man, has been diagnosed with Cancer. So our shithouse football club and every corrupt, double-dealing, selfish 4ucker associated with its demise can all go 4uck themselves just now.

#perspective

#f>ckcancer

[LeverEnd]

Yes hope he makes a full recovery Bruce.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Yes hope he makes a full recovery Bruce.

ditto

[TANGODANCER]

Why are there no free reading lessons for bin men? It just isn't fair that they should suffer abuse because they are incapable of knowing a 5 from a 7, or a 2 from a nine etc. It isn't their fault that every other week the recycling bins (which are the publics attempts to help the cause) should all end up at the bottom of different drives than the ones the numbers on them indicate they should. If they can't read, how on earth can they do their jobs properly? I am very sure that if free lessons we offered a couple of nights each week at local schools they would be well supported by the local mobile recycling agents eager to provide a more competent service for the local public.

I used to think it was just me this happened to ever since I exchanged a few pleasantries with a particular gentleman of the cans and bottles department. Chatting with the neighbours seems to make this not the case, so, let's help these poor chaps to learn to read numbers and make all our lives better. .

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Why are there no free reading lessons for bin men? It just isn't fair that they should suffer abuse because they are incapable of knowing a 5 from a 7, or a 2 from a nine etc. It isn't their fault that every other week the recycling bins (which are the publics attempts to help the cause) should all end up at the bottom of different drives than the ones the numbers on them indicate they should. If they can't read, how on earth can they do their jobs properly? I am very sure that if free lessons we offered a couple of nights each week at local schools they would be well supported by the local mobile recycling agents eager to provide a more competent service for the local public.

I used to think it was just me this happened to ever since I exchanged a few pleasantries with a particular gentleman of the cans and bottles department. Chatting with the neighbours seems to make this not the case, so, let's help these poor chaps to learn to read numbers and make all our lives better. .

As part of the cuts all recycling centres (basically lidded skips in car parks) have been removed by Derbyshire Dales District Council.
Fxcking stunning as I relied on them to, well basically, recycle shit.