Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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

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.

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

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.

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]?

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.

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..

*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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...