Interesting News Snippets

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 851

Having read reports in a variety of papers, some more balanced than others, I agree that the wording of the motion was very unfortunate.

The delegates supported the notion 'there is little doubt that despite recent gains, many schools still remain hostile places for lesbian and gay teachers and pupils, while same-sex marriage remained an uncomfortable subject in spite of its improved legal status' That is the issue, that current legistlation is not being acknowledged in some schools.

If they had instead passed a motion that demanded that all schools, including private schools, academies and free schools, had a properly formed PSE curriculum that would encourage teachers to tackle what Christine Blower called 'equality of opportunity and fair treatment for all students and staff regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation' it would have beenmore difficult to object to (as this is effectively what anti-discrimination laws support)

unfortunately, the Government's insistance in the wake of the problems in some Birmingham schools that all institutions should be " Teaching about the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and tolerance and respect for others as part of our promotion of British values, and is at the heart of what every school has to deliver for children" ( quote from a Conservative spokesman) does not sit well with some religious schools. Hence the flack the NUT motion has received. It would indeed put some teachers in those schools in a very difficult position under current governance systems.

Ofsted have already been exploring schools attitudes to homophobia and how schools were preparing pupils for life in modern Britain. Indeed, it was partly for this reason that Durham Free School was closed. That and the pupil behavior, the bullying and the apparent financial mismanagement.

As regards the tackling of difficult issues in schools, the same (unnamed) Conservative spokesman today said
"Our guidance makes it clear that no teacher or school leader should feel unable to talk about difficult or sensitive issues - indeed teaching about fundamental British values actively encourages such discussions - but no-one should be using a school to promote views, opinions or beliefs that discriminate against other people on the basis of their background."

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 851

And yet another nail in the coffin of parental responsibility. This and many other elements of social education should not be within the remit of the school at all.

Is it any wonder the modern parent has such a low perception of his responsibilites when they are taken on by schools?

In my experience some parents expect the schools to do their parenting for them. It is a chicken/egg scenario

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

I am quite sure you are right. That's the problem! Chicken and eggs and scenarii shouldn't come into it.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Schools are not an arena for social engineering or experimentation. The left wing indoctrination of students at our State schools proceeds apace.

No longer is it sufficient to teach our children to properly read and write, they now have to be forcibly politicised.

Perhaps this is why the teaching of children at home is seen to be the more desirable. At the very least children remain children for a lot longer.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 851

I have seen no empirical evidence of social engineering or political indictrination from any source left or right or anything inbetween in any of the schools I have been in or heard about.
I believe this is another of the conspiracy theories mentioned in the other 'simple question' thread.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Perhaps it's 'mission accomplished' at the schools you have visited. You'd only know if you questioned the students on what they've learned. See 260. Your NUT has called for a positive influence. That then, is not an example of social engineering ? The empirical evidence you appear to value will be thin on the ground as you well know. What will remain? Teacher's notes; student notes as evidence of empiricism?

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 851

Have you any evidence yourself? Please give examples to support your position. If not,how can you make the assertion in #265?

Regarding #260 I do not take 'evidence' in Newspapers at face value without supporting information. They can so often get things wrong. Whichever paper it is in. Have you seen the Mail's reporting of the Omaka airshow?
In this particular case, the the NUT conference, the reporting appeared consistant in a number of different sources, although the emphasis and 'moral outrage' that developed from the reports differed considerably in them.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

I have my personal experience and those of my politically neutral colleagues in teaching, upon which to draw. I have the collective reports on the subject from so many media sources that comprises an almost non stop flow of information.

I'm more than sure that you are as aware as I am of this matter. Your declared political affiliations intervene.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 851

I have my personal experience and those of my politically neutral colleagues in teaching, upon which to draw. I have the collective reports on the subject from so many media sources that comprises an almost non stop flow of information.

I'm more than sure that you are as aware as I am of this matter. Your declared political affiliations intervene.

You seem to imply that I am "aware" of indoctrination. You are effectively suggesting that I am lying.

So, to make my position very clear.

I have genuinely never seen any indoctrination, ever, indeed all the teachers I know are scrupulous in keeping their own politics out of the job. None of my students knew who I voted for, and indeed asked me on occasion but I would not say as I thought it inappropriate.

I could say that you have been blinkered by your own prejudices, but since I don't know what your experiences and media sources are, I would be falling into your own trap, so I won't say that.

By the way, I have not declared any political affiliation. Oh, another thing, I am not a member of the NUT either, as you seem to have alluded to in post#267

I have said who I won't vote for, but if you recall I have also stated I have yet to decide who to vote for this time. If even I don't know how I will vote........

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

I'm quite touched by frequent media reports of the current concern shown by many American military commentators when airing their views about British defence spending. I recall that after WW2, successive American governments were apparently keen to weaken Britain's standing in the world thus enabling the Americans to arrive on the stage as the worlds only superpower policeman.

But, all became well because someone invented the 'special relationship'. This was taken to indicate that Britain and the U.S. were, underneath a certain rivalry, just really good buddies standing shoulder to shoulder against whatever was the threat flavour of the month. One aspect that was never much discussed was that the 'special relationship' was more in the minds of British politicians than the' man in the street' whether here or in America.

All the more ironic, given the history of Anglo American relations over the past 60/70 years, that our now best friends should be so concerned about our level of defence spending - a concern which I certainly share.

I wonder if their concern would have more emphasis if it were coupled to a new form of Lend Lease that resulted in a few choice bits of weaponry crossing the Atlantic at knockdown prices.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

The worlds second greatest newspaper the Daily Mail reports that a Coalition initiative appears to be delivering a positive result. Costa Coffee and the supermarket chain Morrisons have announced their participation in the Coalition's much trumpeted apprenticeship scheme.

Some commentators have taken a rather superficial attitude to these worthy proposals. They ask whether training young people to make coffee and tastefully decorate supermarket shelves is really what Britain needs in its quest to re-establish itself once more as the workshop of the world.

This move seems to me to be a step in the right direction. Let the Chinese and the Koreans concentrate on heavy engineering - they do it much more cheaply. If we do what we do best - quantitative easing, we can quietly print money to buy the goods the Americans tell us we need like the F35. We might have been able to con the French into building the two aircraft carriers but, then their printing presses are also very busy.

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

These apprenticeship schemes do smack of wheel reinvention. From what I gather, they were all the rage up until the Blair regime anyway. From personal experience it would appear that a lot of apprenticeship and graduate schemes exist as a means of underpaying staff for the level of responsibility they are landed with. When I was job hunting after my MSc I found a lot of graduate schemes that were looking for newly qualified graduates with 'two years of experience in the field, knowledge of Javascript, Python, SQL, C++, CAD, ideally six months + experience on site', for a job that pays ~£20k is happens to be in London (they all are). Quite how you are meant to have gained those precious two years of experience is beyond me, because the true purpose of a graduate scheme should be to give the employee said experience in the first place. If you are already vastly qualified for such a role then you wouldn't be applying! That job would be either a six month fixed term appointment or a sleazy rolling contract that means you don't get any of the perks of being a real employee; you can be fired at any time, you don't contribute towards a pension, you get limited annual leave and sick pay. Costa and Morrisons are probably rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of hiring and firing numpties on minimal wage positions at will without costly tribunals etc... It seems a lot of corporations allowed themselves to get very top heavy during the financial downturn, by firing the serfs first, then crow endlessly about their philanthropic work; re-employing a token number of youngsters on reduced wages with fixed term contracts.

Perhaps I've got it wrong. What makes a newspaper more or less great?

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 851

What makes a newspaper more or less great?

Accurate reporting would be a big prerequisite. Bothering to check facts out, rather than pinching other's copy and rehashing it.

Rather scuppers the Mail in both respects. Just ask JK Rowling about that, she won an aplogy and substantial damages over their failure to check basic facts out.

A great newspaper would probably be one that won a Pulitzer prize

Actually, to give them their due, I respect the Mail for their courageous coverage and pressure on the authorities regarding the Stephen Lawrence Killers. But that was some while ago now

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570722/Daily-Mail-page-turning-point-says-mother-Stephen-Lawrence.html

However, this did not sit well with some of their readers, just check out the comments after the article linked to above.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

The often written comment that many on this forum are less than keen on the Mail qualifies it in my opinion as second only to the D.Tel. which apart from Mary Riddell is the best.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 851

The Mail and the Telegraph are but parrots to the Tory Party Machine.

I have my personal experience and those of my politically neutral friends, upon which to draw. I have the collective reports on the subject from so many other media sources.

I'm more than sure that you are as aware as I am of this matter. Your declared political affiliations intervene.*

*Sorry John to paraphrase, couldn't help myself. I'll go and sit on the naughty step till I feel guilty.

We all have an opinion, they often differ, and we tend to read papers and agree with media outlets that support our own position. I am as guilty of that as the next person. However I do read as widely as I can, and this includes the Telegraph, the Times, the Sunday times, the Independent, the Guardian all regularly, very infrequently the FT and Observer, and, when I want to get a sense of moral outrage to set up my day, the Mail online. I am afraid I am too sensitive to be willing to go and buy a Mail in a shop. However, when I was living with an Aunt for a while a few years ago, I did read the paper copy of the Mail as she took it, and it doesn't seem to have changed much.

Whilst the Mail may be a cut above the other tabloids, such as the Sun, The Express etc. which I am afraid I don't read, it's standards of reporting and, lets face it, basic use of English, often fall below all the other publications mentioned

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 8,505

[QUOTE=trekbuster;2216486]The Mail and the Telegraph are but parrots to the Tory Party Machine.
And The Guardian and Times aren't the Labour equivalent. There's no such thing as an unbiased Newspaper in this country. Even The Independent often prove that it obviously isn't.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 851

My point exactly Mike. ( I don't actually really mean the Parrot bit, the Telegraph is quite critical of some aspects of the Cons election campaign, it was a tongue in cheek comment paraphrasing an earlier post)

However I think to be accurate the Guardian leader actually supported the Lib Dems at the last election, not the Labour party and Rupert seems to have parted company with Labour as well. The Sun and Times supported the Conservatives in 2010

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/may/04/general-election-newspaper-support

Hence the need to read around the publications to see their spin and try, if possible, to get to the truth without blindly sticking to one or two 'trusted' news sources.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 851

Right wing press in news bias shocker

It seems the tories tried to bury a very positive report about how business leaders supported EU membership and all the benefits that it provides the UK economy because it didn't, as they had hoped, show that there was any evidence Brussels had any excessive power or reach.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/18/tories-covered-up-eu-evidence-conservatives

In another blow to Dave and Nige, the new Tesco boss has stated that the proposed referendum on the EU is in itself a bad thing for business

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-tesco-chairman-john-allan-slams-tory-plan-for-eu-referendum-10187367.html

Not surprisingly, neither pieces of news are reported in the Mail or the Telegraph.

Perhaps equally unsurprising is that neither the Grauniad nor the Indy reported Nige's pathetic attempts to continue the 'row' over the audience in last weeks debate in his piece in the Daily Fail

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 1,542

Of course big business are in favour of EU membership. Free access to markets, unlimited supplies of cheap labour to keep overheads down etc.

However, the decision on our membership of the EU should not be decided by exploitative big businesses, it is the people who should decide.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

Not necessarily so. That's just one group - many business leaders are anti EU protectionism and the DG of the British Chambers of Commerce as reported in the Grauniad in February wants an early referendum to clarify the uncertainty.

Business reflects the spectrum of opinion across the country from Europhile to Eurosceotic and all stations between.