Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)

[bitchstewie]

sim72 said:

bhstewie said:

Do more remote learning with less laptops

Laptop allocation for England's schools slashed by 80%

There has to be more to this?

We've had our allocation (which still included some that were never delivered in the first place in May, and included 4G dongles for families that had no Internet connection at all) reduced by around 65%.

However, it is now a legal requirement that we teach all self-isolating kids online.

I can't help thinking there's a slight logical disconnect here.

Feels like it.

Have you had any reason given for it and what happens if you can't meet the legal requirement because you aren't given the hardware to do so?

[Red 4]

Crackie said:

Red 4 said:

Tuna there, saying he looks beyond the headlines, delves into the facts and purporting that he doesn't make wild accusations and bold statements without having the first fking idea what he is talking about.

Laughable. Absolutely laughable. The hypocrisy continues. Sorry mate but you are just becoming a parody of yourself now.

You're right that we should check the facts - when they are available - but you really should practice what you preach.
Your latest posts just make you look like a sanctimonious buffoon. Them's the facts.
Sorry.

It's the way tell 'em.

Your posting history on here has provided nothing but political rhetoric, anecdotes dressed up as facts and a multitude of insults.

Having read your response to Tuna's post above and both of your contributions during the past fortnight, Tuna has a far more pragmatic and balanced view than your 'contributions' suggest you're capable of.

That simply isn't true. I've highlighted Tuna's outright lies, bullst and rhetoric on multiple occasions.
You need to buy a dictionary and read the definition of pragmatism. It clearly isn't what you think it is.

What usually happens is that he twists and turns and tries to avoid the facts and/ or deny saying what he actually said.
Given that this is an internet forum it's very easy to prove the lies.
Now that is pragmatic.

I haven't added to the rhetoric on this thread. There's enough of it already. I'm just calling out the bullst, in the main.

As for the insults, I'm only rude when I mean to be.

I'm beginning to think you don't love me anymore.
Can we give it one more go ? Please ?
If not, yeah, fk it. I never loved you anyway.

[sim72]

bhstewie said:

sim72 said:

bhstewie said:

Do more remote learning with less laptops

Laptop allocation for England's schools slashed by 80%

There has to be more to this?

We've had our allocation (which still included some that were never delivered in the first place in May, and included 4G dongles for families that had no Internet connection at all) reduced by around 65%.

However, it is now a legal requirement that we teach all self-isolating kids online.

I can't help thinking there's a slight logical disconnect here.

Feels like it.

Have you had any reason given for it and what happens if you can't meet the legal requirement because you aren't given the hardware to do so?

Well, the obvious reason is that the Government doesn't like spending money on disadvantaged kids, which they've already proved this week. They claim that they're "targeting it at the most underprivileged areas", but we have nearly 50% of kids on FSM so that argument is clearly economic with the truth.

However, the wording is vague. Do we have to only "offer" online learning for all isolating students (we do this already, we have done since September, and taught Years 9, 10 and 12 online from April to July) or do we in some way have to make sure they can actually access it?

If the former, we've fulfilled our legal requirement. If the latter, how the flying f*** do we do that? There isn't even the issue of chucking a laptop at each house. What if a family has three kids in three different lessons? What if they have Internet, but not unlimited data? What if they only have 4G access but live in an area with crappy reception?

We've asked all these questions. There has never been a response.

[Randy Winkman]

amusingduck said:

Randy Winkman said:

amusingduck said:

bhstewie said:

amusingduck said:

bhstewie said:

I wonder if he'll be rethinking this

Ben Bradley: I will not be undertaking unconscious bias training – and call on my colleagues to take the same stand

You might be happy to see the race first and the individual second, but not everybody feels that way. Thankfully.

I'm with MLK. You?

I'm pretty sure you'll find that sort of thing looks beyond "just" race and covers all sorts of other issues i.e. sexism, ageism, upbringing and background.

The point is unchanged. Critical Race Theory vs MLK. They are mutually exclusive.

MLK?

Either way, Ben Bradley proves that the very people that really need to do unconscious bias training are the ones that refuse to do it. Though to be fair, they are the ones that are so confident that they are always right that there's probably no point anyway.

Does anyone really think they have no unconscious biases?

Martin Luther King.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

He'd be spinning in his grave if he could see where the US is going. Trying to repeal race discrimination laws, say.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,...

I am entirely confident in my belief that people should not be viewed through a racial lens, yes. That the individual comes first, not their group identity. That belief is inviolable.

If you believe otherwise, your mindset is no different to that of the garden variety racist.

Cheers. I dismissed that MLK meant Martin Luther King because I think that the suggestion is so wide of the mark. But that's probably for another thread.

[bitchstewie]

sim72 said:

Well, the obvious reason is that the Government doesn't like spending money on disadvantaged kids, which they've already proved this week. They claim that they're "targeting it at the most underprivileged areas", but we have nearly 50% of kids on FSM so that argument is clearly economic with the truth.

However, the wording is vague. Do we have to only "offer" online learning for all isolating students (we do this already, we have done since September, and taught Years 9, 10 and 12 online from April to July) or do we in some way have to make sure they can actually access it?

If the former, we've fulfilled our legal requirement. If the latter, how the flying f*** do we do that? There isn't even the issue of chucking a laptop at each house. What if a family has three kids in three different lessons? What if they have Internet, but not unlimited data? What if they only have 4G access but live in an area with crappy reception?

We've asked all these questions. There has never been a response.

As a teacher what's your view on the FSM debate this week?

With the laptop story I wouldn't even claim to know how the roles and responsibilities around education get divided up between schools and local and regional Government but it feels like common sense that if you're going to set a legal requirement at Government level that children can learn online you should be able to back that up with the equipment required to do so for those that need it.

Vague wording and nothing coming back when you ask doesn't come as a surprise.

[sim72]

bhstewie said:

As a teacher what's your view on the FSM debate this week?

With the laptop story I wouldn't even claim to know how the roles and responsibilities around education get divided up between schools and local and regional Government but it feels like common sense that if you're going to set a legal requirement at Government level that children can learn online you should be able to back that up with the equipment required to do so for those that need it.

Vague wording and nothing coming back when you ask doesn't come as a surprise.

Well, we're a school that already do a lot for our deprived students (unused food from the canteen goes out to them, we do Christmas hampers for all of our most deprived families, we spent 5K to cover additional essential costs for some - not food, an example might be a family whose cooker has broken - over the summer). However it can't be underestimated what a different FSM makes. If you're a family with an average disposable income of less than £100 a week, even that £15 to cover food is an immense relief.

I suspect most of the Tories espousing on this (not counting Bradley, who is just a tw*t, and has lengthy form for proving it) are quickly finding out that when it's kids involved, their unpleasant ideology resounds with very few people in this country.

[bitchstewie]

sim72 said:

Well, we're a school that already do a lot for our deprived students (unused food from the canteen goes out to them, we do Christmas hampers for all of our most deprived families, we spent 5K to cover additional essential costs for some - not food, an example might be a family whose cooker has broken - over the summer). However it can't be underestimated what a different FSM makes. If you're a family with an average disposable income of less than £100 a week, even that £15 to cover food is an immense relief.

I suspect most of the Tories espousing on this (not counting Bradley, who is just a tw*t, and has lengthy form for proving it) are quickly finding out that when it's kids involved, their unpleasant ideology resounds with very few people in this country.

I have to be honest all three of those are examples I hadn't even thought of.

Fair play to you for doing all of that (sorry as reading that back that sounds very patronising so please take it at face value).

Looks like the laptop story might be getting a bit of traction as I just saw this on my Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/132001244...

Sounds a right bloody mess.

[Crackie]

Red 4 said:

Crackie said:

Red 4 said:

Tuna there, saying he looks beyond the headlines, delves into the facts and purporting that he doesn't make wild accusations and bold statements without having the first fking idea what he is talking about.

Laughable. Absolutely laughable. The hypocrisy continues. Sorry mate but you are just becoming a parody of yourself now.

You're right that we should check the facts - when they are available - but you really should practice what you preach.
Your latest posts just make you look like a sanctimonious buffoon. Them's the facts.
Sorry.

It's the way tell 'em.

Your posting history on here has provided nothing but political rhetoric, anecdotes dressed up as facts and a multitude of insults.

Having read your response to Tuna's post above and both of your contributions during the past fortnight, Tuna has a far more pragmatic and balanced view than your 'contributions' suggest you're capable of.

That simply isn't true. I've highlighted Tuna's outright lies, bullst and rhetoric on multiple occasions.
You need to buy a dictionary and read the definition of pragmatism. It clearly isn't what you think it is.

What usually happens is that he twists and turns and tries to avoid the facts and/ or deny saying what he actually said.
Given that this is an internet forum it's very easy to prove the lies.
Now that is pragmatic.

I haven't added to the rhetoric on this thread. There's enough of it already. I'm just calling out the bullst, in the main.

As for the insults, I'm only rude when I mean to be.

I'm beginning to think you don't love me anymore.
Can we give it one more go ? Please ?
If not, yeah, fk it. I never loved you anyway.

Love you to bits.........funniest poster on PH.

[Red 4]

Crackie said:

Love you to bits.........funniest poster on PH.

I've grabbed that with open arms whilst it's still available. Thankyou.

OK, we'll give it one more go. I may start asking you to dress up and stuff though. Be warned.
It's time you saw the real me. If you can hack it, I'm yours.

All my love, Red.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Never has 'get a room' been more appropriate.

[vonuber]

sim72 said:

If you're a family with an average disposable income of less than £100 a week, even that £15 to cover food is an immense relief.

Serves them right for not having a better paid job; maybe they should cut down on the 90inch plasma's and Sky, and make do with a cheap Motorolla MR201 on pay as you go, and then go set themselves up as a limited company IT specialist.



Am I doing this right?

[Red 4]

vonuber said:

Serves them right for not having a better paid job; maybe they should cut down on the 90inch plasma's and Sky, and make do with a cheap Motorolla MR201 on pay as you go, and then go set themselves up as a limited company IT specialist.



Am I doing this right?

Don't forget the fags and the Tennents Super Strength.

Tennents is the staple diet of the feral underclass. It's like Spinach to Popeye. But it also makes them very angry. Not a good combination.

[IforB]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/24/...

"Schools in some of the most deprived areas of the country were told on Friday night they would not receive the laptops they were promised to help their poorest and most vulnerable pupils learn remotely.

Headteachers across England received emails from the Department for Education on the eve of half-term informing them that their allocations of laptops for disadvantaged pupils had been slashed by around 80%."

You know that whole" levelling up" thing. Turns out they are lying about that too.

First off refuse to feed hungry kids. Now ensure that the kids most in need of education to help them eventually get out of the situation they are in, don't get what was promised.

It is almost as if they want to maintain a malnourished, less well educated section of society in order to maintain their position.

So much for supporting the poor.

Scumbags.

[Dixy]

Wow you could always let the hungry kids have some of the chips off your sholders.

[IforB]

Dixy said:

Wow you could always let the hungry kids have some of the chips off your sholders.

Thanks for that input. I am sure you must be proud.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

IforB said:

Thanks for that input. I am sure you must be proud.

Is your mouthing off on a car forum making the slightest difference to anything?

[bitchstewie]

Lewis Goodall's Twitter feed is quite useful I find.

I don't know how accurate this is because of course how do you know where else to look but it's an interesting read.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/131959167...

[IforB]

Child poverty and hunger thread by Jane Godley

In the mid 70s my mum and dad were separated, I was the youngest. Mum was exhausted with life, crap at managing money and addicted to Valium/ opiate pills – I was 14 at Eastbank Academy school
2. I got free meals and it was embarrassing but I was too hungry to care. I would eat at midday and not eat again until midday the next day as there was often no food at home
3. I became clever at finding people in the family to “visit” to ask them for a sandwich or some biscuits. I was ashamed of the poverty and it was always a “secret” bear in mind I was being sexually abused by my Uncle at the same time
4. So visiting family was fraught with danger in case he was there as well. People ask “why didn’t you say?” Well I did say …nobody really listened and if they could accept my abuse then the hunger was going un noticed
5. I couldn’t concentrate at school I was starving and gorging on food at midday. It wasn’t every day but probably 3/4 days of the week this went on
6. Cookery classes were a nightmare as we had to pay 50p or something towards the ingredients and I couldn’t afford that so I wasn’t allowed to learn to cook – the teacher often let me skip the fee though and she knew I was eating my “dishes” before they went home
7. The guidance teacher sussed ( god bless Mr Burgess) that I was hungry and skint and would often bring a sandwich for me at 10am break. He saved my life and sanity – and tried to get me to explain what my home life was like but I couldn’t explain
8. The constant hunger drove me to stealing food from the cookery class and I more than once ate out of a bin when classmates threw away food
9. Child poverty brings such shame and horror on kids, we don’t want you to know our house is filthy, that we have nits and we haven’t eaten as we don’t want you to judge our mammy, she is already was broken
10. Our mammys cry into cans of beer and sing songs about “how my man left me” and smoke into the one bar electric fire and you sit there and don’t want anything else bad to happen to her
11. My mammy ended up in a mental institution more than once and I recall the shame of going to school in her slippers because I had no shoes
12. Children bear the stigma of extreme poverty and blame themselves for their parents failings and blame their own bodies for sexual abuse
13. No social worker ever came to see my mum about my welfare and thankfully. we have @children1st so if you’re a parent reading this and feeling overwhelmed with poverty and hunger – call them and get support – I wish someone had for wee Janey in 1974
14. This is still happening today – stop judging people – help the kids and accept mental illness/ addiction and broken families can be supported because the Tories aren’t going to do it so families in crisis please turn to people and ask for help because your kids won’t.

I wonder what some of the people defending the Government think of this.

I am laying bets with myself at the responses.

[Murph7355]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

IforB said:

Thanks for that input. I am sure you must be proud.

Is your mouthing off on a car forum making the slightest difference to anything?

It's obviously making him and his compadres down the yacht club feel better about themselves

IforB said:

...

It is almost as if they want to maintain a malnourished, less well educated section of society in order to maintain their position.

So much for supporting the poor.

Scumbags.

Get a grip of yourself. People like you and Angela Rayner are the reason why sensible debate on this topic is impossible.

And for as long as people like you and her are taking the approach you are, there will never be meaningful solutions to this problem.

[IforB]

Murph7355 said:

Stay in Bed Instead said:

IforB said:

Thanks for that input. I am sure you must be proud.

Is your mouthing off on a car forum making the slightest difference to anything?

It's obviously making him and his compadres down the yacht club feel better about themselves

IforB said:

...

It is almost as if they want to maintain a malnourished, less well educated section of society in order to maintain their position.

So much for supporting the poor.

Scumbags.

Get a grip of yourself. People like you and Angela Rayner are the reason why sensible debate on this topic is impossible.

And for as long as people like you and her are taking the approach you are, there will never be meaningful solutions to this problem.

There is no "sensible debate" to be had on whether hungry kids should be fed.

There is only right and wrong.

Feed the damned kids. Simple as that.