I heard the news today, oh boy..

[El Pibe]

i've no idea how you murder a wave now i read back.

[DaveR]

This is the verdict (no jury). And he has been acquitted of murder. And I wouldn't advise gunning the missus down on the basis that he seems to have wriggled off the hook - decisions in individual trials on the particular facts don't set precedents, and SA trials definitely don't set precedents elsewhere.

[Loz]

I've always suspected he'd get manslaughter. Couldn't get anything less, really. But there didn't seem to be the evidence for murder. The prosecution's case didn't seem that strong to me - all conjecture, no evidence.

[El Pibe]

ah, i didn't realise no jury. it's alright dave, i wasn't getting ideas ;)

Just found it curious that she more or less said he can't be done for murder because because his story which she seemed to acknowledge were a pack of lies, were plausible enough, and lying doesn't make you guilty, if i understood?

Is this what amounts to 'reasonable doubt'?

eta - and i guess i should have said everyone in SA

[Robert Poste's Child]

He's been cleared of premeditated murder but could still be found guilty of culpable homicide or manslaughter. My guess would be the former, given the judge's comments so far.

[El Pibe]

I think that's just their name for manslaughter isn't it?

[Loz]

Apparently there were three conviction possibilities:

- premeditated murder

- murder without premeditation: an intent to kill, but with no planning, in the heat of the moment

- manslaughter, or culpable homicide

The judge has so far ruled out either of the first two, leaving only culpable homicide/manslaughter.

[Otta]

The way I have read the judges comments, she seems to be saying "you're guilty as sin and I don't believe a word you say, but there isn't enough evidence to put you away".

[Robert Poste's Child]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think that's just their name for manslaughter

> isn't it?

Manslaughter appears to be option 3 - yes you killed her but it wasn't your fault.

[maxxi]

It would have been manslaughter even if it HAD been a burglar wouldn't it? The severity of the sentence would presumably be down to whether he was really in fear of his life and had no option but to shoot.

[El Pibe]

That brings stuff to mind, we read any numbre of times about man x in the states shooting some poor non wasp cub scout on their door step, or putting shiny coins out whilst waiting in the shadows with a shotgun, do they generally get off?

[Robert Poste's Child]

Apparently the judge has now found him not guilty of culpable homicide either. Doesn't seem right to me.

[Loz]

That's not right RPC - she is holding off that part of the verdict until tomorrow. But, judging by what she said before the adjournment, she seemed to be building up towards a 'guilty' on culpable homicide/manslaughter.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Thanks for correcting. I read it on the BBC website, strangely. Confusing.

[DaveR]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29346906

There are a couple of threads already going where the benefits or otherwise of private and/or selective schools are going strong, and this seemed to me to be pretty relevant. The conclusions of this research (which I understand are consistent with lots of other research) reveal a pretty brutal and uncomfortable truth - streaming (and by implication selectivity in education in general) benefits more able kids but actively hampers less able ones, so the incentives for those two groups of kids and their parents are diametrically opposed. I think this chimes with most people's intuitive take on it (hence the continuing popularity of grammar schools wherever available) but to see it supported by hard data is something else.

Also the political spin is interesting. This conclusion:

"Streaming undermines the attempts of governments to raise attainment for all children whatever their socio-economic status.

"Those of lower socio-economic status, as identified across a range of measures, tend to be disproportionately placed in lower streams, with consequences for attainment."

actually raises more questions than it answers. Getting rid of streaming may well close the attainment gap but on the evidence that's as much because you're bringing the top down as the bottom up. It also begs the question why "Those of lower socio-economic status, as identified across a range of measures, tend to be disproportionately placed in lower streams"; it kind of leads to an obvious and equally uncomfortable nature vs nurture question.

[david_carnell]

Fascintating and thought provoking stuff Dave.

I think what shocked me about the article was that it was talking about streaming at a primary school level.

I have to confess I wasn't even aware such things took place. It certainly didn't in my primary school some 25 years ago and I'd naively assumed that still to be the case universally.

Your nature v nurture question is exemplified by this quote:

Those in the bottom stream were more likely to have behavioural difficulties, be from poor backgrounds and to have less educated mothers.

It would seem to therefore be a inter-generational problem with poorly educated parents producing offspring who have no-one at home to teach them and then the cycle repeats itself.

On a society-wide level, I'm more concerned with the outcomes for those at the bottom. Those at the top will generally manage fine without the extra help. Those at the bottom will continue to, in a rather dispassionate way, cost society more in the long run. Poor education results in a number of issues later in life that the rest of society has to pay for: crime, ill-health, unemployment etc.

In my mind, anything that boosts that group upwards (even if at the expense of those at the "top") can only be a good thing in the long-run.

[mikeb]

Streaming is divisive but it must be less so to stream within schools than between schools as with grammar schools - at least there is some contact between pupils. Also it must be easier to move between streams within a school than between schools.

For my own benefit, in primary and secondary schools these days, is it common to have a "top set" class across all subjects, or is it still possible to be top set for maths, middle for English and bottom for [something else]?

[Otta]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On a society-wide level, I'm more concerned with

> the outcomes for those at the bottom. Those at the

> top will generally manage fine without the extra

> help. Those at the bottom will continue to, in a

> rather dispassionate way, cost society more in the

> long run. Poor education results in a number of

> issues later in life that the rest of society has

> to pay for: crime, ill-health, unemployment etc.

>

> In my mind, anything that boosts that group

> upwards (even if at the expense of those at the

> "top") can only be a good thing in the long-run.

Couldn't agree more with this.

[vgrant]

I want to see a world where all kids are higher than average.

[*Bob*]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have to confess I wasn't even aware such things

> took place. It certainly didn't in my primary

> school some 25 years ago and I'd naively assumed

> that still to be the case universally.

Didn't you sit on tables roughly according to ability at your primary? Streaming in all but name..

[El Pibe]

"I want to see a world where all kids are higher than average."

Gove?

[Earl Aelfheah]

vgrant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I want to see a world where all kids are higher

> than average.

:-)

[david_carnell]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I have to confess I wasn't even aware such

> things

> > took place. It certainly didn't in my primary

> > school some 25 years ago and I'd naively

> assumed

> > that still to be the case universally.

>

> Didn't you sit on tables roughly according to

> ability at your primary? Streaming in all but

> name..

No. I sat with Chris Brown, Leanne Bartley and Lindsey Dayer (*swoon*) - alphabetical with even split of boys and girls on each table.

[StraferJack]

We had A, B and C classes when we hit state secondary school in lates 70s/early 80s Ireland , based on an entrance exam -

[????]

Not only weren't we streamed at mine but we had two years in the same class with one teacher doing the same lessons, 3 teachers 90ish kids....I had to mentally check that was right but it was