Blair playing a blinder

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 26 Aug 2005, 16:32

I did source from my memory, which is pretty good (and long). I know I have read the info somewhere, I just haven't looked for the source whence I gleaned the info. And part of me asks "what's the point?" as you will only disagree.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Aug 2005, 10:35

dccairns wrote:And part of me asks "what's the point?" as you will only disagree.

(edit) Disagree with factual evidence, how can one?.

I don't think it is nitpicking or "narrow" debating to ask someone to back up their statements with a respected source and or data. I am doing so, all I ask is that you reciprocate.

How about a compromise? Did you see the statement on th ONS report on poverty the other day?

It confrmed that the gap had widened between the richest 20% and the lowest 20%. So let's accept that as a fact and recognise that Blair/Brown's fiscal policy is not effective in gap narrowing.. I don't believe that the government are striving to widen the gap but it is increasing.

The ONS report went on to to say that although the gap had got wider each group's (highest and lowest) income had grown by more than 20%. When you combine that fact with the reports detailed above, it is unequivocal that millions of people have been lifted beyond the recognised income standard that defines poverty. Do you accept this evidence from 2 respected and independent sources?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Sep 2005, 11:15

Won't you sing a little louder over there?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Sep 2005, 16:33

Even Ken Clarke is now saying that Blair is the only person left who says Iraq and the 7/7 attacks are not linked. I bet Jack McConnell is finding himself nodding in agreement, if only because he despises Phony Tony more than anyone else in Scotland!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Sep 2005, 19:51

Dadaist wrote:.... if only because he despises Phony Tony more than anyone else in Scotland!

That is a tough competition to win!!!

I think Jack knows that TB would have taken almost anyone before him as scottish leader. All Jack's grievances are based on real or imagined personal slights by Tony. Didumms.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Sep 2005, 20:03

It's just a shame that Jack McConnell's rhetoric isn't as incendiary as Tony Blair's bombs or Mike Watson's evening entertainment. Then we'd really have a leader.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Sep 2005, 20:16

There is a paucity of good politicians at Holyrood and a plethora of A holes. Labour is most certainly not immune.

I hope you are not trying to derail this debate to relieve dc from what is obviously a very difficult dilema for her.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Sep 2005, 20:21

Porty wrote:There is a paucity of good politicians at Holyrood and a plethora of A holes. Labour is most certainly not immune.

I hope you are not trying to derail this debate to relieve dc from what is obviously a very difficult dilema for her.

Not at all. All I wish to relieve dc of is empty wine bottles.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 25 Oct 2005, 11:57

Thought I would revive this following the announcement of Tony's latest coup, i.e. reform of education.

Pity it's not happening here. What fun we could have with the sponsorship, e.g. the RBS Portobello High School and the Macdonalds Towerbank Primary or the Gloag anti-homosexualist academy. Anyway, I'm thinking of moving to England to start my own school.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Oct 2005, 12:45

dccairns wrote:Thought I would revive this following the announcement of Tony's latest coup, i.e. reform of education.

Pity it's not happening here. What fun we could have with the sponsorship, e.g. the RBS Portobello High School and the Macdonalds Towerbank Primary or the Gloag anti-homosexualist academy. Anyway, I'm thinking of moving to England to start my own school.

Blair certainly should be paying attention at least to some basic form of education of our children - if only to understand orders like "fire", "forward march", "kill" or whatever - as I'm sure he is aware that he is simply the transient custodian of next generation's soldiers.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Oct 2005, 15:01

Glad you resurrected this classic. Now, where were we? Ah yes, you were struggling to substantiate your claim that poverty had worsened under Blair, in order to combat the substantial evidence against, that I had put forwrad.

dccairns wrote:I did source from my memory, which is pretty good (and long). I know I have read the info somewhere, I just haven't looked for the source whence I gleaned the info..

I know you are a person of integrity and when you say you read the info somewhere, I believe you. I have searched for something you that may have read, that does the job required and I have yet to locate it. So what can you have read?

I can only conclude that Gemini must have sent you a poverty PM that was a copy of something that Carla made up.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 25 Oct 2005, 15:37

Still looking...

Now, what have you got to say about the latest education "reforms"?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Oct 2005, 18:22

dccairns wrote:Still looking...Now, what have you got to say about the latest education "reforms"?

If future Blair related debates between us are to have value; I feel you have to bring closure to the poverty issue. I have conceded that the poverty gap has widened. I went on to produce overwhelming evidence that poverty had diminished under Blair. You have yet to concede or produce counter evidence. It needs closure, cough or choke?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 25 Oct 2005, 22:29

Porty wrote:Glad you resurrected this classic. Now, where were we? Ah yes, you were struggling to substantiate your claim that poverty had worsened under Blair, in order to combat the substantial evidence against, that I had put forwrad.
dccairns wrote:I did source from my memory, which is pretty good (and long). I know I have read the info somewhere, I just haven't looked for the source whence I gleaned the info..
I know you are a person of integrity and when you say you read the info somewhere, I believe you. I have searched for something you that may have read, that does the job required and I have yet to locate it. So what can you have read?

I can only conclude that Gemini must have sent you a poverty PM that was a copy of something that Carla made up.

No - wizznae uz

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 25 Oct 2005, 22:38

Now Teflon T wants to farm out operations, to the private sector,
and wait for it... they will be paid more than the NHS, for carrying out
the same op!

Notwithstanding the fiasco over the Hatfield Rail Disaster.
companies involved fined Â£10m, for negligence!
But not to worry, they got over Â£100m in new contracts - hello!

And a wee mention here :
Edinburgh City Council can find Â£200m for a revamp of Princess Street!
They must be going to flog the Castle and Gardens off to fund it.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 26 Oct 2005, 11:40

dccairns wrote:Thought I would revive this following the announcement of Tony's latest coup, i.e. reform of education.

Pity it's not happening here. What fun we could have with the sponsorship, e.g. the RBS Portobello High School and the Macdonalds Towerbank Primary or the Gloag anti-homosexualist academy. Anyway, I'm thinking of moving to England to start my own school.

from the Guardian:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools ... 14,00.html

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 26 Oct 2005, 12:59

I think competition is good and should be introduced into Schools as early as possible. We are genetically pre-disposed to compete.

While I was at School we liked beating the other Schools at sports and academically.

I would have sponsorship of Schools by Industry. After all it will be Industry who will employ most of the pupils and educationalists have wanted Industry and Parents to become more involved with Schools over the years.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Oct 2005, 13:24

Brian McCrow wrote:I think competition is good and should be introduced into Schools as early as possible. We are genetically pre-disposed to compete.

While I was at School we liked beating the other Schools at sports and academically.

I would have sponsorship of Schools by Industry. After all it will be Industry who will employ most of the pupils and educationalists have wanted Industry and Parents to become more involved with Schools over the years.

Milk snatcher!!

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 26 Oct 2005, 14:05

Brian McCrow wrote:I think competition is good and should be introduced into Schools as early as possible. We are genetically pre-disposed to compete.

Perhaps we are, but I would suggest we are far more disposed to cooperate with each other. How much of your time is spent in competition rather than cooperation with others?

While I was at School we liked beating the other Schools at sports and academically.

Would these activities have been worthless in themselves without the validation of victory?

I would have sponsorship of Schools by Industry. After all it will be Industry who will employ most of the pupils and educationalists have wanted Industry and Parents to become more involved with Schools over the years.

There have been many attempts at this in recent years at involving industry, with little interest or success. It ends up attracting and indulging creationist cranks like sir peter vardy.
Why not appoint educationalists to influence 'industry' as they will be training their future employees, or maybe they would be better off minding their own business?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Oct 2005, 18:18

xxxx wrote:There have been many attempts at this in recent years at involving industry, with little interest or success. It ends up attracting and indulging creationist cranks like sir peter vardy.

Mrs PoP worked as PA to Sir Peter Vardy for over 6 years and I have met him on many occassions. Creationist yes - Crank no, in fact I seriously struggle to think of a less 'cranky' person than him. He is a strong and charismatic leader and the City Technology College he set up under the Tory scheme in the early 90's is a fantastic school. It takes mainly regular kids from catchment area, is 7 times oversubscribed and achieves fantastic exam results in an incredibly modern and well equipped building. The school does have a Christian ethos.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Oct 2005, 19:07

A Creationist *is* a crank, by definition.

ali · Post by **ali** » 26 Oct 2005, 20:07

http://www.crank.net/religion.html

http://www.crank.net/creationism.html

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Oct 2005, 23:24

Not all cranks are creationists and all creationists are not cranks.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Oct 2005, 23:35

Pal of Porty wrote:all creationists are not cranks

Be more specific. Explain some of the key concepts in astronomy for starters - like cosmic background radiation - in terms of Creationism. Or dinosaur fossils. Of maybe the genetic similarity between measles in humans and distemper in dogs.

Even if you don't think they are cranks, they are most certainly homophobes who would like to teach our kids that every muslim on earth is going to burn in hell.

Just as the original theory that the earth was at the centre of the universe was shown to be wrong, so this bizarre literal interpretation is at best cranky and at worst evil.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Oct 2005, 23:39

Dadaist wrote: Even if you don't think they are cranks, they are most certainly homophobes who would like to teach our kids that every muslim on earth is going to burn in hell.

Who is they?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Oct 2005, 23:49

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Even if you don't think they are cranks, they are most certainly homophobes who would like to teach our kids that every muslim on earth is going to burn in hell.
Who is they?

Creationists.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Oct 2005, 09:19

Iv'e never even heard of them until yesterday. I though the term just meant creative doers and thinkers.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Oct 2005, 09:40

Porty wrote:Iv'e never even heard of them until yesterday. I though the term just meant creative doers and thinkers.

If only, dude.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 27 Oct 2005, 10:49

Pal of Porty wrote:Not all cranks are creationists

I agree, they're just one variety

and all creationists are not cranks.

That's a bit generous, what about pat robertson?

I'm glad to hear that sir peter is such a nice man, but if this document
from his schools website is anything to go by, he is one of those creationists who are cranks.
A few choice samples:
Biblical Christianity also points to the essential flaw in all human beings, namely that they have an inherent tendency to sin and thus God's image in them is marred. This flaw cannot be dealt with by human effort or good works. It can only be dealt with by God's intervention in history through the birth, life, death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ and in the personal faith and new birth of the believer

History can be seen not as a cycle of meaningless events but as a story in which God speaks and acts.

God also acts in and through History; He intervened into History in the person of Christ and He has the power to allow or to frustrate Man's aims. In this context, it becomes important to peruse why Hitler paused at the English Channel when an immediate invasion might have lead to a swift victory. Could it be that God was calling a halt to this march of evil?

(Correct answer: no)

Indeed, as in Hebrews 11.3, it is "by faith [not intellect] we understand that the world was made by the Word of God"

Furthermore, in a world where the Muslim teacher in a Muslim country teaches within an accepted culture enmeshed in the belief system revealed in the Koran, so too the task of the teacher in Emmanuel should seek to teach in a way consistent with the revelations of the Bible.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 27 Oct 2005, 11:10

xxxx

I agree that we are also pre-disposed to cooperate and this improves our competitiveness e.g. in a football team we are more successful if we have strikers, defenders and a goalie all working together.

We still compete everyday whether it's against the weather, for food (especially in the poorer countries), other teams, other companies. Let's teach our kids competition and cooperation, including living in society and with industry and commerce. This is why I would want them to cooperate with Industry and Commerce, including sponsorship.

If we strive for an inclusive society, education should teach kids about including all aspects of the society in which they will be living.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Oct 2005, 11:41

Brian McCrow wrote:xxxx

I agree that we are also pre-disposed to cooperate and this improves our competitiveness e.g. in a football team we are more successful if we have strikers, defenders and a goalie all working together.

We still compete everyday whether it's against the weather, for food (especially in the poorer countries), other teams, other companies. Let's teach our kids competition and cooperation, including living in society and with industry and commerce. This is why I would want them to cooperate with Industry and Commerce, including sponsorship.

If we strive for an inclusive society, education should teach kids about including all aspects of the society in which they will be living.

HAHAHAHAHA

Yes, and just like football you can steal an entire region's resources and spirit the ill-gotten billions to a foreign land, buy yourself a football team and sit back while your mafia buck pays for expensive players to co-operate their way to the top.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Oct 2005, 12:06

Dadaist wrote:
HAHAHAHAHA

Yes, and just like football you can steal an entire region's resources and spirit the ill-gotten billions to a foreign land, buy yourself a football team and sit back while your mafia buck pays for expensive players to co-operate their way to the top.

Some people will stop at nothing to beat Hibs 4 nil.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 27 Oct 2005, 13:10

xxxx wrote:..I'm glad to hear that sir peter is such a nice man, but if this documentfrom his schools website is anything to go by, he is one of those creationists who are cranks.

I expressed no opinion on whether Sir Peter was a nice man or not, I stated that I do not think he is a crank. Personally I am diametrically opposed to creationism and do not even believe in God but perhaps that makes me a crank in the eyes of the creationists!

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 27 Oct 2005, 13:53

Pal of Porty wrote:
xxxx wrote:..
I expressed no opinion on whether Sir Peter was a nice man or not, I stated that I do not think he is a crank. Personally I am diametrically opposed to creationism and do not even believe in God but perhaps that makes me a crank in the eyes of the creationists!

A crank is a person who has strange or unusual ideas and beliefs, if you don't have any then they wouldn't be justified in describing you as such. As there is no evidence of god available, you are perfectly justified in holding such a view. It would be up to them to prove you wrong. These people are absolutists, not relativists, so they could only describe you as wrong in their opinion.

From that page I cited, there's enough evidence of strange beliefs and attitudes to convince me that he's a crank.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Oct 2005, 13:54

Pal of Porty wrote:perhaps that makes me a crank in the eyes of the creationists!

I'm sure they forgive you.