Options

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] - This Place Is Not A Place Of Honour

12357113

Posts

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    regardless of merit or aptitude

    Why do you keep making this false and utterly refuted claim?

    Also, check the online services section of your local library. It will probably give you free access to the article.


    1. false and utterly refuted what? Your comment doesn't make sense out of context
    2. Why would I do so?

    You keep lying and saying that the students being admitted from disadvantaged backgrounds did not have the same aptitude as the students from advantaged backgrounds who did not get one of the limited slots. Despite it being explained that all students being admitted are qualified to be admitted. Or invent a hypothetical where a preference for admitting qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds will slip down the slope to admitting unqualified students for some reason.

    My dude, I didn't ever say any of that. I think you are confused. I said, several times, that unis should have the ability to distinguish students who all present as identical. In fact my point was their background should be irrelevant. I accept Affirmative Action is something we should promote. I protest that it should be 100% of admittance.
    Maybe dial back the language buddy.

    So when you said "regardless of merit or aptitude" what you actually meant was not that. Gotcha

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    regardless of merit or aptitude

    Why do you keep making this false and utterly refuted claim?

    Also, check the online services section of your local library. It will probably give you free access to the article.


    1. false and utterly refuted what? Your comment doesn't make sense out of context
    2. Why would I do so?

    You keep lying and saying that the students being admitted from disadvantaged backgrounds did not have the same aptitude as the students from advantaged backgrounds who did not get one of the limited slots. Despite it being explained that all students being admitted are qualified to be admitted. Or invent a hypothetical where a preference for admitting qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds will slip down the slope to admitting unqualified students for some reason.

    My dude, I didn't ever say any of that. I think you are confused. I said, several times, that unis should have the ability to distinguish students who all present as identical. In fact my point was their background should be irrelevant. I accept Affirmative Action is something we should promote. I protest that it should be 100% of admittance.
    Maybe dial back the language buddy.

    So when you said "regardless of merit or aptitude" what you actually meant was not that. Gotcha

    ...wow did you read the whole paragraph? It wasn't a comment on students ability, it was a comment on a hypothetical Labour policy that would mean only deprived students would be accepted. Which is a point about bad policy not a comment on deprived student capability.
    Maybe read the whole post? And cool your sarcasm.

    RazielMortem on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    regardless of merit or aptitude

    Why do you keep making this false and utterly refuted claim?

    Also, check the online services section of your local library. It will probably give you free access to the article.


    1. false and utterly refuted what? Your comment doesn't make sense out of context
    2. Why would I do so?

    You keep lying and saying that the students being admitted from disadvantaged backgrounds did not have the same aptitude as the students from advantaged backgrounds who did not get one of the limited slots. Despite it being explained that all students being admitted are qualified to be admitted. Or invent a hypothetical where a preference for admitting qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds will slip down the slope to admitting unqualified students for some reason.

    My dude, I didn't ever say any of that. I think you are confused. I said, several times, that unis should have the ability to distinguish students who all present as identical. In fact my point was their background should be irrelevant. I accept Affirmative Action is something we should promote. I protest that it should be 100% of admittance.
    Maybe dial back the language buddy.

    So when you said "regardless of merit or aptitude" what you actually meant was not that. Gotcha

    ...wow did you read the whole paragraph? It wasn't a comment on students ability, it was a comment on a hypothetical Labour policy that would mean only deprived students would be accepted. Which is a point about bad policy not a comment on deprived student capability.
    Maybe read the whole post? And cool your sarcasm.

    I did. And your previous posts that are mostly just old warmed over arguments against affirmative action generally and pretending that privileged backgrounds don't have any impact on anything. Why invent a hypothetical policy to threaten to burn the country down over your opposition to it? Particularly when your apocalyptic hypothetical is... qualified students attend prestigious universities that they merit admittance to, but they're all poor, meanwhile well off students also receive an exemplary education attending their second or third choice University.

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Sure hope Labour don't make ice cream and puppies illegal

    Goddam leftists

    That's it, I'm voting Tory

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Sure hope Labour don't make ice cream and puppies illegal

    Goddam leftists

    That's it, I'm voting Tory

    I'm reminded of the Self-Righteous Brothers in Harry Enfield.

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »
    Sure hope Labour don't make ice cream and puppies illegal

    Goddam leftists

    That's it, I'm voting Tory

    I'm reminded of the Self-Righteous Brothers in Harry Enfield.

    I'd forgotten how much I used to enjoy 90's and early 2000's sketch comedy. Very funny stuff, I remember watching that sketch for the first time on the TV!

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    As much as it has downsides, i have an appreciation forthe brutal fairness of the CAO system when it comes to things like university places.

    Now Playing:
    Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
  • Options
    TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    If you want to go to Edinburgh and literally nothing else will do, there is the option of taking an unfunded place and paying yourself, where you (I presume) will follow the international admission track

    I 'm not so sure, my course (a masters) wasn't funded, but it was still comparable to the fees you'd pay in England. A Scottish person would also have to pay as whilst undergraduates are funded, there's a selection of post-graduate courses that get picked for funding which changes each year. 'Properly International' students would be paying a similar amount across the UK I think.

  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    OK, so I can't see the article so I'm just commenting on what is presented here.
    But when I went to University, there were maths and English tests, coupled with 3 rounds of interview. And then I got lucky.
    But university places shouldn't be decided by just predicted grades. And if the university can't individually determine aptitude then that's the uni failing.
    Because it's unlikely all say 1000 applicants were equal. And the probability those 100 were the 100 best is astronomical.
    And if we're just awarding based on background, then yep that's monstrous.
    Deprived students should be helped. But making it only deprived students is bad policy.

    Say we're looking for the best marathoners. We have a 100 rich kids and a 100,000 poor kids. We have everybody carry a bag. Rich kids buy the best bags that weigh 10 kgs. Poor kids get whatever and those bags weigh 20 kgs.

    Raw numbers our 10 best are all rich kids with light bags.

    If we adjust to counteract the 10 additional kgs, say through a statistical sampling method based on results of past marathoners future performance with equal bags, we find that our 10 best are all folks who had the 20 kg weight.

    Is the sampling privileging the folks who had a heavier burden? Or perhaps it is skewed towards those who carried extra weight because there are so many more of them? The top 10 percent of your 100 are .1% of the other population. Are you sure they're actually in the top .001% of the whole group?

    Random numbers here just to illustrate another issue about who is the "best" student and how population sizes matter. It sure if fucking weird how less than 1% of the population make up so many more percent of the "best" potential students.

    Edit: Ah shit, there was a whole other page.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    Also, if you're a rich kid who got perfect test scores... There will be hundreds of prestigious universities all around the world that will be very happy to take some of your parent's money and give you a very good education and access to a network of extremely influential politicians and business leaders.

    And if you're a poor kid with perfect test scores you might be able to get in to a prestigious university and receive a very good education, but I can absolutely assure you that the network of politicians and business leaders will not take you in.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    University education in Scotland is free, subject to specific allocations of numbers of places by institutions and subjects (which is more about making sure institutions don't take on more students than they can actually teach, not limiting numbers of students. If you're a Scottish student you will always be able to access a funded place at a Scottish university).

    The article is about those funded places. If students want to self fund them there's usually a different admission track, but almost all domestic students will apply for funded places through UCAS.

    Another potential way to look at it is that it's the Scottish government, as the funder, directing that those funds preferentially go to students from deprived backgrounds, but that's not a framing that's used politically - probably because the SNP tends to default to universalism over means testing in provision of services and support.

  • Options
    Bad-BeatBad-Beat Registered User regular
    Watching this clip of Sunak talk about Scotland on STV reminds me just how rare it is for journalists to actually press politicians to answer the damn question!

  • Options
    evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    Nothing screams "I am a leader" more than "well these other guys conveniently said 'no' so I'm going to hide behind that".
    this forum needs an eyeroll smiley.

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    There's been a lot in the press about how Sunak is trying to reach out to Scotland in the way that Cameron, May, Johnson, etc all actively avoided

    However I think he's discovering precisely why they did that

  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    They did a really nice job of pressing hard enough to fluster him before eventually letting him go on. He clearly felt like he had to give some actual on topic answer but couldn't use the glib scripted one he wanted to.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    There's been a lot in the press about how Sunak is trying to reach out to Scotland in the way that Cameron, May, Johnson, etc all actively avoided

    However I think he's discovering precisely why they did that

    While true, it's not like pretending it isn't happening is a viable long term strategy either. Unless Tories just want to accept electoral defeat and rely on Labour to fix the problem, from a unionist perspective Scotlands long slow drift away from the UK is either delt with now or never.

  • Options
    fedaykin666fedaykin666 Registered User regular
    The best strategy to reach out to Scotland would to stop being a massive bellend. The most charitable interpretation of Sunak and his cabinet is they only cause failing health services, incinerated poor in unsafe houses, mass poverty and so on through gross incompetence rather than corrupt malice.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Also the assumption is ludicrous. Being poor doesn't make you better.

    99th percentile is better than 75th percentile actually yes.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    What great timing, The Times is reporting that they have confirmation Sunak will block the gender recognition reform.

    liEt3nH.png
  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    What great timing, The Times is reporting that they have confirmation Sunak will block the gender recognition reform.

    Starmer is apparently against it too so we have confirmation no matter what happens in the next election Westminster is willing to cause a constitutional crisis rather than not be transphobic.

  • Options
    Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited January 2023
    Fuckers are doing it, pulling a section 35 on the GRR

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757

    Theu are going to have to be really claer why they think this is a valid move and if they say Haldane then i will add one to my count of people who clearly havent read the judgement

    Alistair Hutton on
    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Fuckers are doing it, pulling a section 35 on the GRR

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757

    Theu are going to have to be really claer why they think this is a valid move and if they say Haldane then i will add one to my count of people who clearly havent read the judgement

    "We figured this was finger-quotes "controversial" enough that we'd get away with it."

    Obviously that won't be the reason they give out, but I feel confident in it.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    Fuckers are doing it, pulling a section 35 on the GRR

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757

    Theu are going to have to be really claer why they think this is a valid move and if they say Haldane then i will add one to my count of people who clearly havent read the judgement

    "We figured this was finger-quotes "controversial" enough that we'd get away with it."

    Obviously that won't be the reason they give out, but I feel confident in it.

    No, that's what they've gone with.

    Absolutely zero detail on what it affects.

    edhoo18wfcm2.png

    Detail will have to come when the S35 order is published though.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    Three of those paragraphs say the exact same thing which is "I did because I did it."

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Civil rights legislation needs to be harmonized across the whole of the UK; which means you don't get to have any.

  • Options
    Red or AliveRed or Alive Registered User regular
    The absolute stupidest ducking reason to kick off a constitutional crisis.

  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    The absolute stupidest ducking reason to kick off a constitutional crisis.

    It's the result of the History Teacher's lobby.

    They like it when you have an unambiguous bad guy to point at near the beginning of When Things Start.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Civil rights legislation needs to be harmonized across the whole of the UK; which means you don't get to have any.

    More accurately, "you don't have to get rights unless ENGLAND says you do". Their argument is either "the English electorate won't like this Scottish legislation" or "this legislation will make Englands look bad so you don't get it". Whichever way you spin in they've just decided to break cover on undoing Devolution.

  • Options
    Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    I am holding fire on giving my full thoughts until they actually publish their reasoning because they suggest in their statement that the Scottish Government could amend the bill but I do not see how it is possible to amend the GRC process without falling foul of "impact on GB-wide Equalities Matters" in any form.

    Basically I waiting to find out what kind of lying fuck sticks they are before calling out their precise lying fuck stick actions.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • Options
    MuffinatronMuffinatron Registered User regular
    I'm really having trouble getting my head around this, all I know is that I am angry.

    Given the assumed low percentage of the population that is transgender (There aren't precise figures but its usually stated as 0.5%?). It must be so incredibly difficult to get anywhere with legislation to benefit the community and yet we had an overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs vote for this... Only to have Westminster just run roughshod all over it.

    I bet they won't even see the hypocrisy in moaning about "muh sovereignty" when it came to Brexit but then turning around and doing this.

    I cannot bang my head on my desk enough.

    PSN: Holy-Promethium
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    I bet they won't even see the hypocrisy in moaning about "muh sovereignty" when it came to Brexit but then turning around and doing this.

    That's only for England, not for its subjects and possessions.

  • Options
    EinzelEinzel Registered User regular
    I have a UK question that's not nearly as important as the soon to be fun caused by your current Prime Muppet, but - do you wait in a queue or on a queue?

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Einzel wrote: »
    I have a UK question that's not nearly as important as the soon to be fun caused by your current Prime Muppet, but - do you wait in a queue or on a queue?


    In.

  • Options
    Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    So given the areas in Jack's letter it is literally impossible for the Scottish Government to make getting a GRC easier without falling afoul of Westminster.

    Absolutely get fucked. End this charade now.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • Options
    SolarSolar Registered User regular
    How these idiots think that this sort of thing doesn't just trash the Union is beyond me. It's almost like they're working to promote Scottish Independence

  • Options
    TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    Einzel wrote: »
    I have a UK question that's not nearly as important as the soon to be fun caused by your current Prime Muppet, but - do you wait in a queue or on a queue?

    You are part of a queue (of people) or line (of people), so you are in it. For you to be "on" something it needs to generally be a separate thing from you that doesn't contain you (on first base, on point/topic, tenterhooks but not in a field or in the crease.)

  • Options
    TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    Solar wrote: »
    How these idiots think that this sort of thing doesn't just trash the Union is beyond me. It's almost like they're working to promote Scottish Independence

    They don't care, I know I've been shouted down every time but it's the same play to a degree as the SNP being the first to break ranks with the opposition to give Boris a GE in 2019.

    Tories are never going to be the people now to keep Scotland in the Union, but you can really make things hard for Labour by daring them to defend both trans issues and devolution, knowing that whilst their base supports both (well, ish), both aren't vote winners nationally. It's a scorched earth electoral policy knowing that they've no chance of winning and almost no chance of winning for some time with the majority they do now.

    So sure, let something harmful to the nation happen, knowing that the fallout will end up being someone else's responsibility and opposition to that fallout will just bolster you're own vote share.

    SNP thought they could mitigate the worst of Boris with their devolved powers and him and his Brexit would strengthen the case for independence (case fucking point today it feels like). Tories now think that fanning pouring petrol on the flames of Scottish independence by overriding devolved powers both weakens Labour by saying that their plans to further devolve power is pointless because the Tories will just take it back, whilst also kicking a wasp's nest of legal challenges that won't resolve until they are out of power. Next Tory PM couldn't give a fuck about Scotland if they left under a Labour leader, they don't live there and they're generally not competitive seats.

    It's playing with fucking fire, because I suspect Scotland leaving the Union shortly will make Brexit just look like the Global Financial Crisis, whilst they think it would be like Brexit on "Freedom Day" whilst all the continuity agreements were in place.

    Or they're morons who think that just having Labour in charge for a couple of years is all the Scots really want, and support will dry up once the Big Bad of the Tories are gone...

    [edit]I mean lets not forget that the 2019 winning Tory campaign team, where the guys imported from the Australian Liberals who thought printing foreign language flyers telling people the election was another day was a good idea. Fines mean nothing if you win.

    Tastyfish on
  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    The timing is probably entirely coincidental, but Penny Mordaunt, the one who was painted by half her party and most of the frothing lunatic press as "too woke" to be Tory leader in the assorted leadership kerfuffles last year yet still put in a reasonable showing nonetheless, has called for the Church of England to allow same-sex marriages, saying the church’s current stance causes “pain and trauma” to LGBTQ+ people.

    Jazz on
  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Just found this:

    n1wlngw8nu0r.jpg

  • Options
    SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    How these idiots think that this sort of thing doesn't just trash the Union is beyond me. It's almost like they're working to promote Scottish Independence

    They don't care, I know I've been shouted down every time but it's the same play to a degree as the SNP being the first to break ranks with the opposition to give Boris a GE in 2019.

    Tories are never going to be the people now to keep Scotland in the Union, but you can really make things hard for Labour by daring them to defend both trans issues and devolution, knowing that whilst their base supports both (well, ish), both aren't vote winners nationally. It's a scorched earth electoral policy knowing that they've no chance of winning and almost no chance of winning for some time with the majority they do now.

    So sure, let something harmful to the nation happen, knowing that the fallout will end up being someone else's responsibility and opposition to that fallout will just bolster you're own vote share.

    SNP thought they could mitigate the worst of Boris with their devolved powers and him and his Brexit would strengthen the case for independence (case fucking point today it feels like). Tories now think that fanning pouring petrol on the flames of Scottish independence by overriding devolved powers both weakens Labour by saying that their plans to further devolve power is pointless because the Tories will just take it back, whilst also kicking a wasp's nest of legal challenges that won't resolve until they are out of power. Next Tory PM couldn't give a fuck about Scotland if they left under a Labour leader, they don't live there and they're generally not competitive seats.

    It's playing with fucking fire, because I suspect Scotland leaving the Union shortly will make Brexit just look like the Global Financial Crisis, whilst they think it would be like Brexit on "Freedom Day" whilst all the continuity agreements were in place.

    Or they're morons who think that just having Labour in charge for a couple of years is all the Scots really want, and support will dry up once the Big Bad of the Tories are gone...

    [edit]I mean lets not forget that the 2019 winning Tory campaign team, where the guys imported from the Australian Liberals who thought printing foreign language flyers telling people the election was another day was a good idea. Fines mean nothing if you win.

    The Tories absolutely do care about the Union, its just to be a Tory you need to have a tragically fantasist idea about what the country looks like. They want Scotland to stay, and NI, but without any idea of what might keep them there.

Sign In or Register to comment.