http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/ Mon, 12 May 2008 04:43:15 +0100 MyBB http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=681 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:31:07 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=681
What do people feel about how they are coping and how things are affecting them personally? I am lucky in that I am not mortgaged to the hilt like many are but despite this the rise in gas electricity has made a huge difference in my monthly budget!! I am sure others have it harder and as interest rates are expected to rise this is gonna put a lot of people in deep trouble.]]>
What do people feel about how they are coping and how things are affecting them personally? I am lucky in that I am not mortgaged to the hilt like many are but despite this the rise in gas electricity has made a huge difference in my monthly budget!! I am sure others have it harder and as interest rates are expected to rise this is gonna put a lot of people in deep trouble.]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=680 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:59:58 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=680
When they had all of the management of the school to deal with then maybe they would have an argument for the rise, as it is they need to get back to reality. Most of the teaching staff that I deal with are in departments teaching subjects that they have know knowledge in. Geography teachers taking ICT lessons. Maths teachers taking science lessons etc. All they do is download lesson plans and follow them, they do not have the actual experience in the subjects to pass on to the children they are supposed to be teaching. If they spent 3 years at Uni learning to be a Science teacher then surely that is what they should teach! As it is they study to be one thing and are suddenly qualified to teach everything!! Should they not even have a grounding in the subject that they are teaching? I sit in on classes quite often (mainly IT) and the teachers often make things up that are totally wrong and also show the kids the completely wrong way to go about things as they have not even the basic grounding in the subject. This has got to be wrong as the kids leave school and go to work or college and are told the way they’ve been taught is wrong yet they don’t believe it as it has been hammered in to them for the last 5 years. Should they not have some knowledge of the subject they teach??


What is not mentioned is all of the responsibilities that have been taken off their shoulders and placed on the support staff. In the last ten years or so the amount of support staff in some schools has gone from 1:10 to 1:1. These staff take the real increase in workload in while the teachers just have a change of duty. While losing one task they gain another, they aren’t working any harder just in a different way!! They forget the tasks they were doing and moan about the new ones, saying they are doing more work but in the end they are doing less.

Another problem with the teachers is that the longer you have been in the job, no matter how good you are at it, the more you get paid. This is wrong. I know of brilliant teachers that are on the lowest grades and do extra work in schools such as dinner duties for minimum wage,when rubbish teachers are getting nearly 50k/year for teaching between 4-8 hours/week for 38 weeks a year and little else. A lot of the work they should be doing is delegated to support workers!! Work it out, that’s a lot of money for the actual work put in.

I have the wage figures from a school to prove this. It includes a headmaster who gets over 70k and is as much use as a chocolate teapot!!

As things stand the general management is up to the support staff (which the teachers used to be responsible for), and in comparison to the megabucks the teachers get they are paid a fraction of the wage.

I’m sure there are plenty of brilliant teachers out there who do deserve a 10% rise but all the VAST majority deserve is a 50% cut and a kick up the ass while being dragged back to the real world.]]>
When they had all of the management of the school to deal with then maybe they would have an argument for the rise, as it is they need to get back to reality. Most of the teaching staff that I deal with are in departments teaching subjects that they have know knowledge in. Geography teachers taking ICT lessons. Maths teachers taking science lessons etc. All they do is download lesson plans and follow them, they do not have the actual experience in the subjects to pass on to the children they are supposed to be teaching. If they spent 3 years at Uni learning to be a Science teacher then surely that is what they should teach! As it is they study to be one thing and are suddenly qualified to teach everything!! Should they not even have a grounding in the subject that they are teaching? I sit in on classes quite often (mainly IT) and the teachers often make things up that are totally wrong and also show the kids the completely wrong way to go about things as they have not even the basic grounding in the subject. This has got to be wrong as the kids leave school and go to work or college and are told the way they’ve been taught is wrong yet they don’t believe it as it has been hammered in to them for the last 5 years. Should they not have some knowledge of the subject they teach??


What is not mentioned is all of the responsibilities that have been taken off their shoulders and placed on the support staff. In the last ten years or so the amount of support staff in some schools has gone from 1:10 to 1:1. These staff take the real increase in workload in while the teachers just have a change of duty. While losing one task they gain another, they aren’t working any harder just in a different way!! They forget the tasks they were doing and moan about the new ones, saying they are doing more work but in the end they are doing less.

Another problem with the teachers is that the longer you have been in the job, no matter how good you are at it, the more you get paid. This is wrong. I know of brilliant teachers that are on the lowest grades and do extra work in schools such as dinner duties for minimum wage,when rubbish teachers are getting nearly 50k/year for teaching between 4-8 hours/week for 38 weeks a year and little else. A lot of the work they should be doing is delegated to support workers!! Work it out, that’s a lot of money for the actual work put in.

I have the wage figures from a school to prove this. It includes a headmaster who gets over 70k and is as much use as a chocolate teapot!!

As things stand the general management is up to the support staff (which the teachers used to be responsible for), and in comparison to the megabucks the teachers get they are paid a fraction of the wage.

I’m sure there are plenty of brilliant teachers out there who do deserve a 10% rise but all the VAST majority deserve is a 50% cut and a kick up the ass while being dragged back to the real world.]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=679 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:41:11 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=679 Quote:Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is trying "to steal the election", over three weeks after the disputed poll, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband says.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7359104.stm

I think Mugabe is trying to reverse the results... and trying to find a way of swinging it his way.

This is a 2000 all over again... someone force this guy out. The opposition (Morgan Tsangari) already has a bounty on his head it is thought.

Bah, Zimbabwe could be soooo much more :(]]> Quote:Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is trying "to steal the election", over three weeks after the disputed poll, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband says.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7359104.stm

I think Mugabe is trying to reverse the results... and trying to find a way of swinging it his way.

This is a 2000 all over again... someone force this guy out. The opposition (Morgan Tsangari) already has a bounty on his head it is thought.

Bah, Zimbabwe could be soooo much more :(]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=678 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:34:32 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=678
Cheers!]]>
Cheers!]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=676 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:35:02 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=676 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=675 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:18:08 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=675
Good news is I shall be here for a long while.

I have a lot of goals that still haven't been met on this site which is quite frustrating but down to me not spending enough time here.

Hows everyone been anyway?]]>
Good news is I shall be here for a long while.

I have a lot of goals that still haven't been met on this site which is quite frustrating but down to me not spending enough time here.

Hows everyone been anyway?]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=674 Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:17:38 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=674 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=672 Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:43:41 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=672 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=671 Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:30:09 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=671 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=670 Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:46 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=670
FULL STORY


Quote:Owner Barry Samms denied the hoodie was targeted at teenage gang members and said it was primarily aimed at US customers concerned about gun violence.


Hmm, lets see... you're a London-based company... selling bulletproof hoodies... in a city full of gangs... and guns...

Nope, I cant possibly see why anyone would think that. :happy0045:

At least this woman talks sense:


Quote:"I don't think it helps. It spreads the fear factor and makes teenagers think they are invincible.

"It disgusts me that companies think about money rather than the safety of our kids.

"We want to encourage them away from a life of violence not towards it."


The company can say what they like, but introducing bullet- and slash-proof clothing ranges in a city that's had 11 gun-related teenage murders this year alone kind of suggests it's aimed at gun gangs and the like...

Sure, sell them in America, but start selling them over here. There's no need, and like that lady said, it'll just encourage more violence.]]>
FULL STORY


Quote:Owner Barry Samms denied the hoodie was targeted at teenage gang members and said it was primarily aimed at US customers concerned about gun violence.


Hmm, lets see... you're a London-based company... selling bulletproof hoodies... in a city full of gangs... and guns...

Nope, I cant possibly see why anyone would think that. :happy0045:

At least this woman talks sense:


Quote:"I don't think it helps. It spreads the fear factor and makes teenagers think they are invincible.

"It disgusts me that companies think about money rather than the safety of our kids.

"We want to encourage them away from a life of violence not towards it."


The company can say what they like, but introducing bullet- and slash-proof clothing ranges in a city that's had 11 gun-related teenage murders this year alone kind of suggests it's aimed at gun gangs and the like...

Sure, sell them in America, but start selling them over here. There's no need, and like that lady said, it'll just encourage more violence.]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=669 Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:38:56 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=669
How often has somebody spaced out on weed robbed somebodies house to feed the habit? They more likely to crash out in the house!! It is the proper class A addicts that are the problem that need sorting out way before the dope smokers.

On the same point ecstasy and speed is classed in the same bracket as heroin and crack and crystal meth. They are not comparable in any way!! I know people who have the odd E or bomb occasionally at the weekends and carry on a normal life with no addiction*. None of them would touch the ‘dirty’ stuff. Stuff that ruins your life and all of those around you. Taking the pills and speed and weed does not lead to a path of taking smack crack and meth.

There is an obvious omission in the above, and that is cocaine. That again is ‘Class A’ but it is only brought to light due to celebrities being hooked on it. The fact is that many normal people use the stuff with no problems or addiction. The reason being that the people with too much money and time on their hands (celebrities) do not live in the real world to start with.

*As with anything there are those that go outside the boundries, as with alcohol, you will get people taking speed through the day and through the week. In my experience it is generally women who use speed as an excuse to lose weight (as it suppresses the appetite). In this respect it does work for weight loss but then does cause an addiction. Even so this addiction is generally a mental rather than physical (I need it to stay thin stays in the head) and is not anywhere near the addiction of smack crack and crystal meth.

The point to all this is that rather than chasing the ‘softer options’ the government should surely be aiming to stamp out the proper hard stuff and the dealers and pushers of it. Yes the rest needs to be sorted also but there is that much of everything available and only so many places available in the prisons. I know of regular dealers of Heroin who actively push it, are caught week in week out and get cautions or fines yet some poor git out for a night out is caught with a couple of pills on them are hammered to the full extent of the law to make an example. Is that not wrong?

It’s like doing the joyrider for no insurance and no licence but only fining them £50 but hammering the person that has been pulled for a dodgy light and got another defect after scouring the car and giving them points and huge fines. (Cases that HAVE happened locally recently)

Often it is the generally law abiding citizen that gets hammered for the most menial of ‘crimes’ while the criminals get the most menial of sentences. After all it is easier to prosecute the people who nothing of the law and its loopholes than the ones that know it inside out (the constant offenders).

OK so they get caught once in a while but the sentences/crime are miniscule to what happens to the man in the street. I have plenty of data to back this up.

Might have gone off on a tangent a bit but tell me I’m wrong!!!]]>
How often has somebody spaced out on weed robbed somebodies house to feed the habit? They more likely to crash out in the house!! It is the proper class A addicts that are the problem that need sorting out way before the dope smokers.

On the same point ecstasy and speed is classed in the same bracket as heroin and crack and crystal meth. They are not comparable in any way!! I know people who have the odd E or bomb occasionally at the weekends and carry on a normal life with no addiction*. None of them would touch the ‘dirty’ stuff. Stuff that ruins your life and all of those around you. Taking the pills and speed and weed does not lead to a path of taking smack crack and meth.

There is an obvious omission in the above, and that is cocaine. That again is ‘Class A’ but it is only brought to light due to celebrities being hooked on it. The fact is that many normal people use the stuff with no problems or addiction. The reason being that the people with too much money and time on their hands (celebrities) do not live in the real world to start with.

*As with anything there are those that go outside the boundries, as with alcohol, you will get people taking speed through the day and through the week. In my experience it is generally women who use speed as an excuse to lose weight (as it suppresses the appetite). In this respect it does work for weight loss but then does cause an addiction. Even so this addiction is generally a mental rather than physical (I need it to stay thin stays in the head) and is not anywhere near the addiction of smack crack and crystal meth.

The point to all this is that rather than chasing the ‘softer options’ the government should surely be aiming to stamp out the proper hard stuff and the dealers and pushers of it. Yes the rest needs to be sorted also but there is that much of everything available and only so many places available in the prisons. I know of regular dealers of Heroin who actively push it, are caught week in week out and get cautions or fines yet some poor git out for a night out is caught with a couple of pills on them are hammered to the full extent of the law to make an example. Is that not wrong?

It’s like doing the joyrider for no insurance and no licence but only fining them £50 but hammering the person that has been pulled for a dodgy light and got another defect after scouring the car and giving them points and huge fines. (Cases that HAVE happened locally recently)

Often it is the generally law abiding citizen that gets hammered for the most menial of ‘crimes’ while the criminals get the most menial of sentences. After all it is easier to prosecute the people who nothing of the law and its loopholes than the ones that know it inside out (the constant offenders).

OK so they get caught once in a while but the sentences/crime are miniscule to what happens to the man in the street. I have plenty of data to back this up.

Might have gone off on a tangent a bit but tell me I’m wrong!!!]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=668 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:36:40 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=668
OK, so perhaps it not particularly news-worthy, but it did make me laugh. I mean, if you work in a hairdressers, it stands to reason that anything you wear on your head is going to raise an eyebrow or two, even if it's only because of the businesses 'branding' or 'PR' or whatever. As long as there's no discrimination going on there, then she should accept that there are going to be some things that aren't suitable for her to do for a living.

I've got a question, though:


Quote:The teenager told the tribunal in London she was "devastated" that she wasn't offered the job "due to my headscarf".


How does she know? For all she knows, she didn't get the job because of a lack of experience in the field. She readily admitted:


Quote:...that Ms Desrosiers did not make any derogatory comment about her headscarf or religion...


Hmmm...

I went to a job interview not so long ago. It was a Web Development job at Cambridge University, would you believe. The job basically involved turning Word documents into webpages, yet when I got to the interview I was asked all sorts of questions about web development technologies that had nothing to do with the job in question. They were also asking questions to do with office politics, knowing full well I'd never workid in an office as I'd come straight out of uni.

I felt uncomfortable too, but am I sueing them because of it? No, of course not. It's a job interview, it's supposed to be uncomfortable. Admittedly I think I did make one of the interviewers feel a little stupid when I indirectly corrected him on the pronounciation of a particular term he was supposed to know. But still, no hard feelings.

[/quote]:P :P :P]]>
OK, so perhaps it not particularly news-worthy, but it did make me laugh. I mean, if you work in a hairdressers, it stands to reason that anything you wear on your head is going to raise an eyebrow or two, even if it's only because of the businesses 'branding' or 'PR' or whatever. As long as there's no discrimination going on there, then she should accept that there are going to be some things that aren't suitable for her to do for a living.

I've got a question, though:


Quote:The teenager told the tribunal in London she was "devastated" that she wasn't offered the job "due to my headscarf".


How does she know? For all she knows, she didn't get the job because of a lack of experience in the field. She readily admitted:


Quote:...that Ms Desrosiers did not make any derogatory comment about her headscarf or religion...


Hmmm...

I went to a job interview not so long ago. It was a Web Development job at Cambridge University, would you believe. The job basically involved turning Word documents into webpages, yet when I got to the interview I was asked all sorts of questions about web development technologies that had nothing to do with the job in question. They were also asking questions to do with office politics, knowing full well I'd never workid in an office as I'd come straight out of uni.

I felt uncomfortable too, but am I sueing them because of it? No, of course not. It's a job interview, it's supposed to be uncomfortable. Admittedly I think I did make one of the interviewers feel a little stupid when I indirectly corrected him on the pronounciation of a particular term he was supposed to know. But still, no hard feelings.

[/quote]:P :P :P]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=667 Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:14:46 +0100 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=667
My local MP’s claims for housing in London were the maximum he could make (think it was about £600k in total) yet he is house sharing with another MP who also made the same claim on the same property!!

If I had the money to campaign at the next election I would, just to get in there with real issues, stop waste of taxpayers money and get real peoples views put across. Yes that is what your MP is for, but does it happen? Probably a tenth of the time.

As things stand there is very little choice in who you vote for either the good the bad or the ugly. None is much better than the other just slightly different. When it comes to votes in the commons they are generally told to toe the party line, that is not exactly democratic is it? If I had my way I would have every MP independent and once elected they would vote in the government. Not ruling parties that can change their minds and exercise their will on the nation. That would be a true democracy.

Even the County councils are as bad. I have a friend in finance in our local council and some of them are proper people out to look after the electorate but there are more bad eggs in there than not. Some of the good ones have the attitude that they had to eat anyway so they don’t even put a claim in for expenses at a meeting yet others put in a £100 food bill for the same meeting!! There is one thing taking advantage and another taking the absolute piss.

Things have got to change and the sooner the better, they cannot continue robbing us like this when there are so many struggling. (Not on about the smackheads and scum who don’t work, that is a different story, mean the families who work to scrimp a living yet taxed to death one way or another) then these people just waste their taxes.]]>
My local MP’s claims for housing in London were the maximum he could make (think it was about £600k in total) yet he is house sharing with another MP who also made the same claim on the same property!!

If I had the money to campaign at the next election I would, just to get in there with real issues, stop waste of taxpayers money and get real peoples views put across. Yes that is what your MP is for, but does it happen? Probably a tenth of the time.

As things stand there is very little choice in who you vote for either the good the bad or the ugly. None is much better than the other just slightly different. When it comes to votes in the commons they are generally told to toe the party line, that is not exactly democratic is it? If I had my way I would have every MP independent and once elected they would vote in the government. Not ruling parties that can change their minds and exercise their will on the nation. That would be a true democracy.

Even the County councils are as bad. I have a friend in finance in our local council and some of them are proper people out to look after the electorate but there are more bad eggs in there than not. Some of the good ones have the attitude that they had to eat anyway so they don’t even put a claim in for expenses at a meeting yet others put in a £100 food bill for the same meeting!! There is one thing taking advantage and another taking the absolute piss.

Things have got to change and the sooner the better, they cannot continue robbing us like this when there are so many struggling. (Not on about the smackheads and scum who don’t work, that is a different story, mean the families who work to scrimp a living yet taxed to death one way or another) then these people just waste their taxes.]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=666 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:03:20 +0000 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=666
Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1967 Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2007 School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1967 Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2007 Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charges them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.

1967 Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2007 Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

1967 Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2007 Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1967 Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2007 Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1967 Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, and goes to college.

2007 Pedro's cause is taken up by state.
Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist.
ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum.
Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, and blows up a red ant bed.

1967 Ants die.

2007 BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1967 In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2007 Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.]]>
Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1967 Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2007 School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1967 Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2007 Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charges them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.

1967 Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2007 Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

1967 Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2007 Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1967 Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2007 Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1967 Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, and goes to college.

2007 Pedro's cause is taken up by state.
Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist.
ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum.
Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, and blows up a red ant bed.

1967 Ants die.

2007 BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1967 In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2007 Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=665 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:19:58 +0000 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=665
18 months ago we were supposed to receive some equipment under this scheme, since then a private company has been sat on the money (£60,000 in the case of our school, times that by the rest of the schools in the county!! A LOT of money!!) After complaining about the delay and having a very tough bursar we were able to opt out of the scheme and get the money allocated to procure the items ourselves. Only 2 other schools opted out. Today we were given the breakdown of the equipment and prices that the ‘preferred bulk supplier’ actually supplied.

This scheme is to supply laptops for use by underprivileged students, we were awarded £60k like I say and exactly how this was calculated and for how many pupils it was supposed to help is a bit vague. The fact is that the company came back with a specification and price for the products that it is supplying to the schools that didn’t opt out. On finding out what they supplied we went off to see how competitive the prices were in order to see if we had made a bad decision in opting out. We could not find the makes and models anywhere to get a price, apart from on some Spanish websites from South America and the like so we rang round some of the suppliers we currently use. It turned out that the models supplied were base models that were discontinued in this country 2 years ago!! The company supplying them has been trying to break in to the local authority market for some time and has a terrible reputation for service and support.

For the same price they have quoted we have bought the required amount of latest spec laptops with full accidental damage warranty and full support contract for £200 less per unit. This allows us to either help more pupils or supply broadband for a year for the ones that have no internet access at home. I think the internet access was part of the original grant deal, but all the other schools have no money left over for this as the supplier has conveniently used the full allowance just supplying the agreed minimum amount of laptops (which we have now sourced from abroad for £300 less than the charge made to the schools).

Bearing in mind they have sourced probably 50+ times the amount that we have how can that possibly be classed as saving money by buying in bulk?? How is this moving forward and who approves these companies to supply us? Oh and a point I forgot to mention was that there was a big meeting to decide the way forward 6 months ago. One of the speakers was a representative from Dell, now I am no big fan of them but they were offering to supply everything including connection and support and everything else but with mega security and if any unit was stolen or missing they had the technology to ‘spike it’ and render it useless and then supply a replacement still for less than the cost of the units supplied. Somewhere the powers that be still went along with an inferior product, inferior support, and inferior service, for a dearer price and no security or accidental damage cover. WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

None of it makes sense to me unless there is either somebody with a conflict of interests making decisions or money changing hands somewhere. This cannot be a decision made on the merits of the supplier. I am really not happy that the small glimpse that I get into the spending of taxpayers money is so wasteful at least and probably illegal. I mentioned going back 20 years because I know for a fact that these dodgy deals WERE going on then. The county council employed companies and one that had a HUGE contract to supply the counties schools was run by the son of the man heading the council and charged 3 times legitimate what companies were quoting. I understand that if there are 60 people doing purchasing that you are going to get a fraction of that taking kickbacks off companies in order to get their business, I have been offered them myself, but at least the companies have been pricing competitively and just adding freebies on top (not taken any for personal gain). 5 years ago though we were forced to use only approved suppliers and all were around 50% dearer than stuff we could source elsewhere. Now we are free and the government is going to force us back to using ripoff ‘preferred suppliers’ it makes no sense to me.]]>
18 months ago we were supposed to receive some equipment under this scheme, since then a private company has been sat on the money (£60,000 in the case of our school, times that by the rest of the schools in the county!! A LOT of money!!) After complaining about the delay and having a very tough bursar we were able to opt out of the scheme and get the money allocated to procure the items ourselves. Only 2 other schools opted out. Today we were given the breakdown of the equipment and prices that the ‘preferred bulk supplier’ actually supplied.

This scheme is to supply laptops for use by underprivileged students, we were awarded £60k like I say and exactly how this was calculated and for how many pupils it was supposed to help is a bit vague. The fact is that the company came back with a specification and price for the products that it is supplying to the schools that didn’t opt out. On finding out what they supplied we went off to see how competitive the prices were in order to see if we had made a bad decision in opting out. We could not find the makes and models anywhere to get a price, apart from on some Spanish websites from South America and the like so we rang round some of the suppliers we currently use. It turned out that the models supplied were base models that were discontinued in this country 2 years ago!! The company supplying them has been trying to break in to the local authority market for some time and has a terrible reputation for service and support.

For the same price they have quoted we have bought the required amount of latest spec laptops with full accidental damage warranty and full support contract for £200 less per unit. This allows us to either help more pupils or supply broadband for a year for the ones that have no internet access at home. I think the internet access was part of the original grant deal, but all the other schools have no money left over for this as the supplier has conveniently used the full allowance just supplying the agreed minimum amount of laptops (which we have now sourced from abroad for £300 less than the charge made to the schools).

Bearing in mind they have sourced probably 50+ times the amount that we have how can that possibly be classed as saving money by buying in bulk?? How is this moving forward and who approves these companies to supply us? Oh and a point I forgot to mention was that there was a big meeting to decide the way forward 6 months ago. One of the speakers was a representative from Dell, now I am no big fan of them but they were offering to supply everything including connection and support and everything else but with mega security and if any unit was stolen or missing they had the technology to ‘spike it’ and render it useless and then supply a replacement still for less than the cost of the units supplied. Somewhere the powers that be still went along with an inferior product, inferior support, and inferior service, for a dearer price and no security or accidental damage cover. WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

None of it makes sense to me unless there is either somebody with a conflict of interests making decisions or money changing hands somewhere. This cannot be a decision made on the merits of the supplier. I am really not happy that the small glimpse that I get into the spending of taxpayers money is so wasteful at least and probably illegal. I mentioned going back 20 years because I know for a fact that these dodgy deals WERE going on then. The county council employed companies and one that had a HUGE contract to supply the counties schools was run by the son of the man heading the council and charged 3 times legitimate what companies were quoting. I understand that if there are 60 people doing purchasing that you are going to get a fraction of that taking kickbacks off companies in order to get their business, I have been offered them myself, but at least the companies have been pricing competitively and just adding freebies on top (not taken any for personal gain). 5 years ago though we were forced to use only approved suppliers and all were around 50% dearer than stuff we could source elsewhere. Now we are free and the government is going to force us back to using ripoff ‘preferred suppliers’ it makes no sense to me.]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=664 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:48:17 +0000 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=664
I've come to realise over the last few weeks, while watching Gordon Ramsey get into slag-match after slag-match with ghetto chefs, that cookery programmes are becoming less and less like actual cookery programmes.

Now I like the idea of a good cookery programme, especially in this day and age, where we have ready-meals, preservatives, pesticides and E-numbers. But when I watch one, I expect to actually learn how to cook something.

Is that so much to ask? I don't think so. Sure, you can jazz up the programme a bit, and make it fun and light-hearted if you want to get the younger viewers watching, but not if you're going to do away with the educational parts altogether. If kids don't want to know how to cook, then fine, leave them to their McDonalds grease buckets. But some people actually like to cook, and although I want to be entertained somewhat, I also want to be educated by people who know better than me.

So, next time a cookery programme comes on, get a stop watch out, and get ready to time how many minutes of the show is spent actually showing you how to cook. I'd hate to put a figure on it these days - it's probably around 50% if you're lucky. The rest of the time the camera is just zooming in and out; showing random shots of dirty spoons on the worktop; or letting the viewers count how many individual spots the chef has on the lower part of their face through a massive close-up shot.

Anyway, don't let me spoil your fun. It is a laugh watching people turn their noses up at Ramsey's advice, and consequently sending their restaurant into the pits of bankruptcy, and I suppose you wouldn't really call that a cookery programme. But for the ones who do like to think of themselves as cookery programmes, they could at least show us some cooking!

;) ;) ;)]]>
I've come to realise over the last few weeks, while watching Gordon Ramsey get into slag-match after slag-match with ghetto chefs, that cookery programmes are becoming less and less like actual cookery programmes.

Now I like the idea of a good cookery programme, especially in this day and age, where we have ready-meals, preservatives, pesticides and E-numbers. But when I watch one, I expect to actually learn how to cook something.

Is that so much to ask? I don't think so. Sure, you can jazz up the programme a bit, and make it fun and light-hearted if you want to get the younger viewers watching, but not if you're going to do away with the educational parts altogether. If kids don't want to know how to cook, then fine, leave them to their McDonalds grease buckets. But some people actually like to cook, and although I want to be entertained somewhat, I also want to be educated by people who know better than me.

So, next time a cookery programme comes on, get a stop watch out, and get ready to time how many minutes of the show is spent actually showing you how to cook. I'd hate to put a figure on it these days - it's probably around 50% if you're lucky. The rest of the time the camera is just zooming in and out; showing random shots of dirty spoons on the worktop; or letting the viewers count how many individual spots the chef has on the lower part of their face through a massive close-up shot.

Anyway, don't let me spoil your fun. It is a laugh watching people turn their noses up at Ramsey's advice, and consequently sending their restaurant into the pits of bankruptcy, and I suppose you wouldn't really call that a cookery programme. But for the ones who do like to think of themselves as cookery programmes, they could at least show us some cooking!

;) ;) ;)]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=663 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:55:12 +0000 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=663
So what do you all think? Bad news for you students-to-be, as the price of everything alcoholic has gone up. Car tax could be better or worse, depending on how much of a gas-guzzler you drive, and the elderly are getting more heating allowance, which is cool.

Thoughts?

:)]]>
So what do you all think? Bad news for you students-to-be, as the price of everything alcoholic has gone up. Car tax could be better or worse, depending on how much of a gas-guzzler you drive, and the elderly are getting more heating allowance, which is cool.

Thoughts?

:)]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=662 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:58:01 +0000 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=662
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edin...293651.stm

Anyone from the US willing to make some assumptions on how he would have fared there?]]>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edin...293651.stm

Anyone from the US willing to make some assumptions on how he would have fared there?]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=661 Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:57:57 +0000 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=661
Like this is a major surprise. Guess he should have gone to the Bill Clinton school of deniability, "It depends on what it is."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23561606?GT1=43001]]>
Like this is a major surprise. Guess he should have gone to the Bill Clinton school of deniability, "It depends on what it is."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23561606?GT1=43001]]> http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=658 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:13:42 +0000 http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=658 Quote:At least 52 Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers have been killed in one of the deadliest days of fighting in Gaza since troops withdrew in 2005.

Doctors said at least eight were children and up to 16 were militants. Israel said most were militants.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_...272329.stm

Israel bombards Gaza again. Killing 16 militants and some children.. This region is just getting worse! :(]]> Quote:At least 52 Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers have been killed in one of the deadliest days of fighting in Gaza since troops withdrew in 2005.

Doctors said at least eight were children and up to 16 were militants. Israel said most were militants.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_...272329.stm

Israel bombards Gaza again. Killing 16 militants and some children.. This region is just getting worse! :(]]>