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

    • Errr could it be because of the noise pollution coming from it perhaps? You may not be able to hear it where you live but anyone on the Dulwich Village side of Lordship Lane all the way to beyond Brockwell Park is being disturbed by it - the sound wash from it is huge and that's a lot of people. As I said before we know people who live nearer to Brockwell Park to us and they say it is unbearable.   To be fair the Emirates moved to a piece of wasteland between railway tracks so it actually in a less densely populated area now and the council actually goes out of their way to try to mitigate the impact on local residents and yes, other than the concerts, you could hear a pin drop on matchdays! 😉 
    • Chains moving in is a sure sign that LL is heading for a fall. They are parasites, waiting for the independents to be successful and then, in partnership with rapacious landlords, they move in and force out those very businesses who have created the market they then seek to exploit. They replace a lively diversity with a bland and predictable offering. Then, when a downturn arrives, they move out, leaving boarded up premises and charity shops. Independent businesses who have worked hard to make a success of their efforts will try to see out hard times as they’ve invested so much. Chains look only at the bottom line and think nothing of closing branches. Chains are liable also to expand too fast, be managed badly and then collapse. Think of Brick House being forced out by Gail’s, the closure of White Stuff (although that chain was replaced by another) and JoJo Maman Bebe. . Sadly, I fear that will be the future of LL. 
    • It’s the impact the festival has on the community, the people living next door to the park who have to endure the thumping music and worse. Then there’s the park and the state it’s left in and the wildlife, especially nesting birds. All the roads going down Denmark Hill towards the park were closed off and roads off half moon lane and going up towards West Norwood closed off with wardens at each end, who were paid by Lambeth Council to stand there for the 4 days.  The festival made the news channels and interviews suggested most of the people attending weren’t fron the local area but places like Ireland and Scotland.  I live a 20 minute walk from the park and could hear the thumping music all day and night. Also the wind certainly carried the smell of drugs to my garden! For 4 days I couldn’t believe how strong it was. 
    • Emirates Stadium is  >60,00 but they tend to be very quiet 🙂 Jokes aside though, it's a case in point. Highbury was <40,000 and was 300M up the road, so there are definitely Islington residents who used to live half a mile from a fairly big football stadium, and now live right by a massive one. One that holds rock/pop concerts too accomodating 70,000 fans whether they like ot or not.   40% of Islington households are in social housing so regardless of when they moved their current homes, they may have had little say in exactly where they are housed.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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