blinder999

woodie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no leonard cohen on tv or internet whatever. > sheesh. Someone has put some ok quality clips on Youtube eg: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Aezsbd4pP3g

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is a sad > time when you feel embarrassed to admit to a > belief because all the really clever people will > scoff at you! didn't you just describe this new school (presumably because of their beliefs) as "a bit mental" - aren't you scoffing? Who gets to choose the supernatural belief where the scoffing is allowed to begin?

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > they are not a communtiy service. they have > responsibilities that overide their thirst for > profit. I dunno snorks. We had a good lunch in the Bishop on Saturday, after which I dopily left my bag behind - one of the great staff (the tall chap) chased me up the road to give it back to me. V good people in there in my experience.

Bellenden Belle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whenever I read her > posts the visual image I have is that of Lou > Beale. funny, I always get: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/03/12/lesdawson460.jpg

I just did this - I think you're right to be wary of the bestmanspeech.com sites, all the speeches/gags on those sites are well-worn, though worth a look as a starting point - as are a few speeches of varying quality on youtube, even if only to warn you about what not to do. I stayed sober, which was probably for the best. I didn't manage to memorise the speech, though I did write it out and read it through enough times to be very familiar with it, and reading it out turned out fine. I was glad I'd spent a few hours writing it (a week or so before the wedding), and I was still revising it right up to the last minute, and when the time came, in front of an audience, it was a lot funnier than in front of the mirror, which was a relief.

Another interesting article on Concordia Medical Director and Chairman, Dr Simon Fradd: simon-fradd-does-his-sums

I like it too - nice to see someone give it a bit of attention.

downsouth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They normally reside in Dulwich Park. I think they > are green parakeets which are noisy little so and > so's. > I saw two of them flitting about on Underhill Rd as I went to get my newspaper this morning. Way prettier than the usual scuzzy pigeons.

david_carnell Wrote: > I sometimes wonder about this. If there is > anything to be said (and I'm loathed to admit it) > for the output of public schools is that the > pupils tend to be more than exam-passing > automatons. Sports play a bigger role and social > skills are developed further. I'm sure that's true - you'd really be wasting your money if you spent ?90,000 on a lad's education and he still wasn't quite a gentleman

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "parents don't want "choice." > > Some of us do. How do you "scrap" private schools > - make it a crime to operate one, or to send your > kid to one? Create a black market for extra maths > tuition? if the purpose of these schools is to give averagely-intelligent kids a leg up into (largely state-funded) universities, then perhaps the government could cap the percentage of kids from any given school that can go there. After all, Oxbridge aren't getting the brightest kids - they're getting a load of kids expensively schooled in the art of passing A Levels, and the Oxbridge entrance exams.

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok, here's my proposal for the British education > system. > > Scrap all private, selective schools and faith > schools. They have no place in a fair, > meritocratic education system. Reinstate the > eleven plus - compulsory for everyone - but > instead of using it to separate by ability, use it > to ensure that every school has a comprehensive > intake with kids of all abilities. Each child is > assigned the nearest possible school to satisfy > this criteria. Each school then uses streaming in > all subjects from day one to ensure > differentiation. Parents are not given a choice of > schools. This is the only way to ensure fairness. > To ensure consistency and teaching excellence, the > lowest and highest abilities receive extra lessons > from a team of specialist teachers who travel the > entire LEA. Speacialist 'units' within a school > can be set up for the brightest and most > struggling kids. > > Result = no more sink schools. Every school is > able to cater for all abilities, so standards > should be broadly the same everywhere. No more > heartache and huge waste of taxpayers' money on > bureaucracy arising from the appeals procedure. > > When it boils down to it, parents don't want > "choice." They want decent schools for their kids. > So why should some get brilliant schools at the > expense of others? I like it.

though the quality of the journalism is comparable

Ant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At last! Hard facts: http://borisjohnsonfacts.com/ is this Ken Livingstone's new online newspaper? He'll need to improve his html skills to compete with thisislondon.co.uk

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Edited following second thoughts. wise Ted. Some opinions are beyond the pale on this board you know.

macker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > But the fact that fee-paying schools still > attract > > a tax-free charitable status does stick in the > > throat rather. > > Perhaps they'd give up the tax status in return > for education money following the child, whichever > school he/she happens to be in. Of course that > might cause some of the state (some LEAs perhaps) > to wither away. I wonder if the Tories will bring this idea up again when they win the election.

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's one thing sending your kid to a fee-paying > school to prevent them rubbing shoulders with the > riff-raff and scumdingers. It's a totally > different thing to send them to a top public > school so that they meet the sons and daughters of > the ruling classes. what about sending them there to practically guarantee them a place at Oxbridge (providing they aren't irredeemably thick)? Is that acceptable?

We had a very good takeout from there last weekend. Pad thai, green curry, mixed starters etc. mmmmmmmmmmm I'm hungry

Class war anyone? http://education.guardian.co.uk/publicschools/story/0,,2279015,00.html

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The blood of kittens isn't it and the flavour is > from the tears of puppies. well I wasn't going to say it Brendan - Sean says they're very litigious

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Milkshake Base: Milk, skimmed milk, cream, sugar, > skimmed milk powder, glucose. Stabilisers: E412 > guar gum, E452 sodium polyphosphate, E407 > carrageenan, E466 carboxymethylcellulose. Vanilla > flavour. Strawberry Flavour Milkshake Syrup: > Water, sugar, glucose syrup, strawberry juice > concentrate, acidifier: E330 citric acid, > strawberry flavour, preservative: E202 potassium > sorbate , natural colouring agent: E162 beetroot > juice concentrate. > > Mmmm. ahh - but that information comes from McDonald's own propaganda site http://www.makeupyourownmind.co.uk, so how can we believe it's true? Everyone knows what the colour in the strawberry milkshake is really made from.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oi! what's with this beyond the pale business?? > Tis a discussion and we sit on opposing sides on > it... I see no-one suggesting it's beyond the pale There is so much anti-McD hysteria, some justified and some not justified IMO, it really is not worth defending them - I know, I've heard it all before, having worked for the filthy capitalist worker-exploiting murder burger shovellers on and off since 1987 (though I left uni without any debt thanks to their comparatively generous wages and flexible shifts). Having said that, I wouldn't want them on Lordship Lane. They attract the wrong sort of people.

Fear 'n boozin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > doubt there's much point arguing in favour of > McD's on here, but I quite enjoy them sometimes, > doubt it'd be the end of the world as we know it, > as some suggest. yes, I knew I should have kept my gob shut - some things are just beyond the pale.

did anyone else catch this brilliant Italian drama on BBC 4? The best thing I've seen since The Wire! And if anyone has the last episode on DVD, please could they let me have a copy as my blummin recorder failed me!

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > funnily enough blinder I look at those burgers in > several rated butchers and wonder why they are > even there. They don't look like they are made > in-house with the same mince sold over the > counter. And why wouldn't you just buy decent > mince and make the burger anyway - time wise it > adds about 10 mins to anyones day? I don't slaughter the cow, I don't chop the meat, I don't mince the meat, so I don't feel guilty about not wanting to make the burgers - I have two kids, any spare minutes I have will not be spent mushing minced beef into burgers any time soon. The ones in Sainsbury's taste great by the way. > As for any company becoming huge by not selling > bad quality? Surely you don't even have to think > for 5 seconds to come up with several examples of > that not being true. I must confess - I worked in McDs part-time all through my education, in various outlets, so I know a fair bit about it, and the quality of the ingredients is good compared to the competition. As for the Schlosser book I > would like it to be an entertaining romp but found > it profoundly depressing but if you dispute the > facts any chance you could come up with some > supporting arguments (independant sources > preferred to mcD's please - they have a history of > .... aggressive measures countering their > opponents) I'm not interested in being a cheerleader for McDonald's - I really don't care that much - but personally, I do believe the propaganda on their site - ie, I believe they have contributed to an increase in standards across the industry.

I like a McD's once in a while. The quality of the food there is pretty high, for its price bracket. You're a lot safer eating a burger there than in many non-chain places which do not have to be so scrupulous about where they get their meat from, or so observant of their sell-by dates etc. They didn't get to be that big by selling poor quality stuff. The Eric Schlosser stuff is entertaining, but should be taken with a pinch of salt. Have some McDonald's propaganda: http://www.mcdonalds.com/content/corp/values/report/archive/progress_report/grandin_interview.html We got some burgers from a certain venerated local butcher once, and they were salty, greasy, old-school burger van-style, so horrible we chucked them out rather than eat them.