Britain - The Official Thread

[justin credible]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36886157

If at first you don't succeed. Get back everything you lost and forget the whole thing.

Sarah Champion, the MP for Rotherham, has retracted her resignation as shadow minister for preventing child abuse and domestic violence.

Is this some sort of sick joke?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sarah Champion, the MP for Rotherham, has retracted her resignation as shadow minister for preventing child abuse and domestic violence.

Is this some sort of sick joke?

Clearly... because Rotherham is the only place where child abuse has ever happened.

 

[justin credible]

Clearly... because Rotherham is the only place where child abuse has ever happened.

Wasn't the abuse in Rotherham going on for a while and swept under the carpet I some how remember hearing/reading some police and councillors knew it was happening by mainly Muslim youths but ignored it so not to cause any race riots? I may be well wrong but I was told that somewhere along the line I must have been as it's in my head from somewhere.

 

[DG_Silva]

No Justin, you are absolutely correct. The Rotherham sex abuse case was mainly Muslim males from Pakistan with a few black men, aged between 20-50, who sexually abused and raped white English girls between the age of 11 and 16, after plying them with drugs and alcohol.

Of course, the police and left-wing run council wouldn't want you to focus on the colour of the skin or the race/religion, as despite it being claimed it is a cultural thing or an interpretation of their religion and holy book which allows them to perform such actions without recrimination, it has nothing to do with them being Muslim, nor apparently was the case in Derby, Oxford, Bristol, Telford, Peterborough or Banbury.

Nothing at all. Remember that, nothing at all....

 

[DK]

Grants for low-income families are to be replaced with loans: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36940172

Oh boy, more student debt!

 

[Dotini]

Nothing at all. Remember that, nothing at all....

...as the dark wings of Sauron shadowed the shire.

 

[m8h3r]

Grants for low-income families are to be replaced with loans: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36940172

Oh boy, more student debt!

This country is an absolute joke when it comes to planning ahead. The people who are being put off by the debt that follows higher education are the people that would have propelled the country forward whether it be in scientific discoveries, technological discoveries or whatever it may be the more educated the population the better.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Oh boy, more student debt!

That depends - due to the way the system works some people may now have to pay more back, but for others it'll make no difference.

To be honest I'm not sure why it's even called 'debt' in the conventional sense - it's a weird sort of debt that automatically disappears after 30 years no matter how much of it is left, and where some people will never have to pay a single penny of it back................

 

[Kuusi]

This country is an absolute joke when it comes to planning ahead. The people who are being put off by the debt that follows higher education are the people that would have propelled the country forward whether it be in scientific discoveries, technological discoveries or whatever it may be the more educated the population the better.

In Britain today it's not the highly educated, skilled professionals, that are respected by the majority of the population, but the blue collar workers. Michael Gove claimed in the run up to the EU referendum, that the British were 'tired of experts'; he wasn't wrong. What started out as an understandable distrust of politicians has turned into an alarming hatred for many, of anyone who doesn't make their living through manual labour. The general consensus being those with 'fancy jobs' (anything where you don't get your hands dirty) must have spent tax payers money attending university, in order to get the job, and so must be a product of the 'oppressive' left-wing; and therefore, not to be trusted.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In Britain today it's not the highly educated, skilled professionals, that are respected by the majority of the population, but the blue collar workers.

Source required.

To be honest I'm not sure why it's even called 'debt' in the conventional sense - it's a weird sort of debt that automatically disappears after 30 years no matter how much of it is left, and where some people will never have to pay a single penny of it back.

It'd be an odd position to have a student loan but then never reach the repayment threshold - I imagine the number of people who fall into that category would be very low. Add to that that a normal debt dies after six years in far more common circumstances and I think you'll find that the really odd thing about student debt is that its far more inescapable.

 

[DG_Silva]

But rather than consider it a debt, why not think of it as a tax for improving your future prospects. You don't pay the tax unless you earn above £21k, you only pay it at 9% above £21k, so if you earn £30000 per annum, you only pay back £810 per year, or £67.50 per month. When you're earning £2500 per month, is £67 that much?

Admittedly, not paying anything would be best, but we can't all have what we want.

 

[polysmut]

Michael Gove claimed in the run up to the EU referendum, that the British were 'tired of experts'; he wasn't wrong.

I would argue that he was very wrong.
Aside from not being able to back up his claim on a factual level; he was morally wrong, as an elected representative, to attempt to dumb-down the positions of those who are chosen to work full time to properly research everything that is relevant to best serve the people they work for (the public) & to make informed decisions that affect people's lives.

 

[Kuusi]

Source required.

My 'source' is having listened to the musings of the masses in my local area, and on social media, leading up to the EU Referendum! In case you'd like a second opinion, however...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...experts-whether-they-support-leave-or-remain/

I would argue that he was very wrong.
Aside from not being able to back up his claim on a factual level; he was morally wrong, as an elected representative, to attempt to dumb-down the positions of those who are chosen to work full time to properly research everything that is relevant to best serve the people they work for (the public) & to make informed decisions that affect people's lives.

Oh I agree. When I said 'he wasn't wrong' I meant he wasn't incorrect in his assumption, that many people in the UK, are 'tired of experts'. But morally speaking, he was very wrong. Not that many people in this country care, as he was simply pandering to their prejudices!

 

[polysmut]

Oh I agree. When I said 'he wasn't wrong' I meant he wasn't incorrect in his assumption, that many people in the UK, are 'tired of experts'

Maybe, but I doubt he could back up that claim.

But morally speaking, he was very wrong. Not that many people in this country care, as he was simply pandering to their prejudices!

Which, we agree, was wrong.

 

[Kuusi]

Maybe, but I doubt he could back up that claim.

At the time, he certainly couldn't have. But I'll put it this way. I have since seen many echoing his sentiments; but only a few opposing them!

 

[polysmut]

At the time, he certainly couldn't have. But I'll put it this way. I have since seen many echoing his sentiments; but only a few opposing them!

But that depends where you're looking & is anecdotal & confirmation biased.
I would wager that he'd done no proper research on it before spewing campaign tripe.

 

[Kuusi]

But that depends where you're looking & is anecdotal & confirmation biased.

To be honest I simply listened to the musings of the masses in my local area; and looked on the comments sections on Facebook, beneath publicly posted article links. Many will argue otherwise, but I find they offer a balanced perspective of what is going on. Whilst you won't find many 'loony lefties' on the Daily Mail website, or right-wingers on The Guardian, they all seem to come together for a bloody battle royale on Facebook!

 

[polysmut]

To be honest I simply listened to the musings of the masses in my local area; and looked on the comments sections on Facebook, beneath publicly posted article links. Many will argue otherwise, but I find they offer a balanced perspective of what is going on. Whilst you won't find many 'loony lefties' on the Daily Mail website, or right-wingers on The Guardian, they all seem to come together for a bloody battle royale on Facebook!

& everybody I spend time talking to disagrees. Which is inadequate as a means to determine public opinion as a whole.

It could be that on any particular point of opinion, the public is split 50-50 but that one side of the fence is more likely to use a well known form of social media or is more likely to be vocal therein.

 

[Kuusi]

It could be that on any particular point of opinion, the public is split 50-50 but that one side of the fence is more likely to use a well known form of social media or is more likely to be vocal therein.

I've never seen a noticeable disparity between the number of left/right wingers on Facebook; reason I suspect being that most sign-up to use the site for personal reasons. Were Facebook a platform dedicated to political discussion, then it would be only natural that one side of the fence, would be much more prominent than the other. But it isn't.

 

[polysmut]

I've never seen a noticeable disparity between the number of left/right wingers on Facebook; reason I suspect being that most sign-up to use the site for personal reasons. Were Facebook a platform dedicated to political discussion, then it would be only natural that one side of the fence, would be much more prominent than the other. But it isn't.

It's not always about left/right though.
Sometimes it could be rich/poor, busy/not, educated/not, north/south, male/female, sporty/tall, fashionable/[insert adjective].

Gove's claim can not be assessed for accuracy based on a person's witnessings on Facebook.

 

[Kuusi]

It's not always about left/right though.
Sometimes it could be rich/poor, busy/not, educated/not, north/south, male/female, sporty/tall, fashionable/[insert adjective].

Gove's claim can not be assessed for accuracy based on a person's witnessings on Facebook.

I'm afraid I have to disagree there. Viewing the public content on social media sites, and the reactions of thousands of regular people to said content, you get a pure oversight of what the popular opinion is among the common masses. You don't get that in digital media, or in the tabloids, where the vast majority of opinions are by professional journalists, and usually regulated heavily. So if public social media isn't a good measure of what the popular opinion among the public is then frankly, I don't know what is.

 

[polysmut]

I'm afraid I have to disagree there. Viewing the public content on social media sites, and the reactions of thousands of regular people to said content, you get a pure oversight of what the popular opinion is among the common masses. You don't get that in digital media, or in the tabloids, where the vast majority of opinions are by professional journalists, and usually regulated heavily. So if public social media isn't a good measure of what the popular opinion among the public is then frankly, I don't know what is.

A structured form of statistical analysis performed on data produced from careful research is entirely possible & that would be a better measure of public opinion than:
"I've never seen a noticeable disparity... ... on Facebook" or "Viewing the public content on social media sites, and the reactions of thousands of regular people to said content, you get a pure oversight of what the popular opinion is among the common masses."

Such a process was available to Mr Gove at the time he made his claim. The Civil Service was there*. If his claim had merit he could have cited the research that led him to make it. He did not.

We are unable to know if the claim was correct or not if we use a Facebook account's newsfeed etc. as our guide.
My feeling is that it was a piece of ill-thought out campaign nonsense, others may of course think he said something valid.

*Maybe it would be frowned upon if the Civil Service was assigned to campaign research rather than government research but the question asked would be just as relevant to governing as it was to the campaign. (Not at all to either in my opinion, referring back to the point I made regarding the morality of his statement)

 

[Kuusi]

A structured form of statistical analysis performed on data produced from careful research is entirely possible & that would be a better measure of public opinion than:
"I've never seen a noticeable disparity... ... on Facebook" or "Viewing the public content on social media sites, and the reactions of thousands of regular people to said content, you get a pure oversight of what the popular opinion is among the common masses."

Such a process was available to Mr Gove at the time he made his claim. The Civil Service was there*. If his claim had merit he could have cited the research that led him to make it. He did not.

We are unable to know if the claim was correct or not if we use a Facebook account's newsfeed etc. as our guide.
My feeling is that it was a piece of ill-thought out campaign nonsense, others may of course think he said something valid.

*Maybe it would be frowned upon if the Civil Service was assigned to campaign research rather than government research but the question asked would be just as relevant to governing as it was to the campaign. (Not at all to either in my opinion, referring back to the point I made regarding the morality of his statement)

Research groups gather their data through collecting peoples opinions, either in person, or digitally, and then correlating the statistics. How does the lack of involvement from a research group suddenly make the publicly posted (not on private news feeds, like you possibly think I mean) opinions of millions of people void? Did these postings suddenly never occur, because the Civil Service wasn't involved?

 

[polysmut]

Research groups gather their data through collecting peoples opinions, either in person, or digitally, and then correlating the statistics. How does the lack of involvement from a research group suddenly make the publicly posted (not on private news feeds, like possibly think I mean) opinions of millions of people void? Did these postings suddenly never occur, because the Civil Service wasn't involved?

No, it's not about whether one specific group or type of group has collected the data & interpreted it, rather that it has been collected & interpreted systematically at all. There may be flaws along the way in the method, certainly, no matter who has done the research but if we're going by the impression we get from Facebook then I'm not classing that as even an attempt to understand public opinion properly.

 

[Kuusi]

No, it's not about whether one specific group or type of group has collected the data & interpreted it, rather that it has been collected & interpreted systematically at all. There may be flaws along the way in the method, certainly, no matter who has done the research but if we're going by the impression we get from Facebook then I'm not classing that as even an attempt to understand public opinion properly.

I'm not going by a vague impression I got from a quick glance at the comments on a Facebook link one evening, like you seem to be assuming. Whenever a trending tag appeared on Facebook, that was related to the referendum, I'd read it; and pay close attention to what was being commented.

Now you may have a grudge with social media. You may think it destroys communication, ruins relationships, is a drain on society, etc. I can't say, I'm just guessing. But you seem to be saying that unless a platform is professionally orientated, then opinions posted there don't count. Which is like saying a cheeseburger isn't a cheeseburger unless it's cooked in a Michelin five-star restaurant, by Gordon Ramsay.

But opinions posted on social media, are opinions in their purest form. They're not biased, regulated, or tampered with in any way. They come straight from the horses mouth. And statistics are great, especially for when the divide between two differing opinions is too small to see, with the naked eye. But when it isn't, statistics aren't necessary.

 

[polysmut]

I'm not going by a vague impression I got from a quick glance at the comments on a Facebook link one evening, like you seem to be assuming. Whenever a trending tag appeared on Facebook, that was related to the referendum, I'd read it; and pay close attention to what was being commented.

I didn't assume that you hadn't put any thought or effort in.

Now you may have a grudge with social media. You may think it destroys communication, ruins relationships, is a drain on society, etc. I can't say, I'm just guessing. But you seem to be saying that unless a platform is professionally orientated, then opinions posted there don't count. Which is like saying a cheeseburger isn't a cheeseburger unless it's cooked in a Michelin five-star restaurant, by Gordon Ramsay.

We're on social media right now & have no gripes with it.
Opinions count everywhere but I don't think we can accurately assess the extent of public opinion just by what we each see individually.

But opinions posted on social media, are opinions in their purest form. They're not biased, regulated, or tampered with in any way. They come straight from the horses mouth. And statistics are great for when the divide between two differing opinions is too small to see, with the naked eye. But when it isn't, statistics aren't necessary.

We don't know if the divide is too small to see, we don't even see the same opinions. You've seen people express that they are sick of experts, I've seen the opposite. Neither of us can know how representative that is of the country as a whole.

The original point about Mr Gove's claim though. You may be right that he did speak the truth, he didn't assert any numbers or even say "most" or "many". If I remember correctly he only said "people are tired of experts" (or something similar). So even if a couple of people fit his description, he is stating a fact.

I've enjoyed discussing this & I'd like us to remember that we both think it was wrong of him to downplay the role of expertise.

See you on the forums. 👍

 

[TRGTspecialist]

It'd be an odd position to have a student loan but then never reach the repayment threshold

Might depend on the degree you come out with........

Add to that that a normal debt dies after six years in far more common circumstances and I think you'll find that the really odd thing about student debt is that its far more inescapable.

Oh I won't argue that - I've just graduated so my long inescapable journey is just beginning after all My point was only really going as far as @DG_Silva 's which was the system is closer to a tax than "giant pile of cash you must pay off or else", a view I too often came across with friends when applying for (and even during) uni.

 

[ExigeEvan]

But rather than consider it a debt, why not think of it as a tax for improving your future prospects. You don't pay the tax unless you earn above £21k, you only pay it at 9% above £21k, so if you earn £30000 per annum, you only pay back £810 per year, or £67.50 per month. When you're earning £2500 per month, is £67 that much?

Admittedly, not paying anything would be best, but we can't all have what we want.

This is correct and I think is how it should viewed more widely.

However, I can't accept that nurses will now be required to pay fees. They work throughout their studies on wards and shift patterns, far more than a medical student does at any point. It's an outrage that they now have to work and pay and I'm surprised it's not been contested legally.

 

[Liquid]

I'm not so sure how long the "pretend your student loan doesn't exist" will carry on considering, if I remember correctly, that whilst the SLC is still a not-for-profit entity, the collection agency arm was privatised and thus will be inclined to recuperate as much money as it possibly can.

I'm sure I remember that but I could be wrong.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

This is correct and I think is how it should viewed more widely.

However, I can't accept that nurses will now be required to pay fees. They work throughout their studies on wards and shift patterns, far more than a medical student does at any point. It's an outrage that they now have to work and pay and I'm surprised it's not been contested legally.

Agree with your post as far as charging but I think med students are on the wards a lot in their clinical years