Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, actually.
Thulberg is director general of the Swedish National Agency for Education, which oversees policy and research for the whole system, including the independent schools, which are part of that system.
Fair enough.
If you bother to read it, you'll see it is not the work of a lobby or interest group.
Will do.
-
But it gets worse:
Over that worsening period of degradation in Swedish educational achievement about 90% of pupils were taught in Swedish state shools.
-
Intentionally or not, this rosy view carefully avoids the realities outlined in a Guardian story last week:
By "realities outlined" you mean the lobbying undertaken by the state schools of Sweden (Director General - Per Thulberg) for a bigger budget.
-
The present plans rely heavily on a walking-bus operation along Great North Road and over Bond Street. That's a hell of a long way to be walking without shelter if the skies open the way they sometimes do in September.
It is also an extremely long way to walk on a full bladder.
-
$0. That's what "revenue neutral" means.
Ahem.
$12 million tax increase. That's what "revenue neutral" really means.
I remember when I used to get outraged about people failing to adjust shit by CPI and drawing inappropriate conclusions from indicies.
Yeah...
($4b x CPI) - ($4b x LCI) = $12 million Tax Increase.
CPI = 2.1%
LCI = 1.8% -
Quantative tightening by means of pyromaina?
-
Having said that, Angus, I don't think you are a troll, and much as I think your argument is a steaming pile of... disputable opinions, I do respect you coming here, arguing your point and being pretty civil. Considering what kind of argument you're making anyway.
If however you do think I am a troll, here is my confession.
I can see how I could be thought a troll. And i have been banned from a number of sites. Generally though they are of an extreme political agenda and I'd disagree with things on a very regular basis and say so - politely, but persistantly.
I "blurt" stuff, its a thing and i have views, another thing. I'll read a blog, an article and say hey thats not quite right, I think for a while generally about it, jump through a few logic steps and blurt out the first "good enough" conclusion I come to. This first utterance seldom has the effect of being sufficiently succint a definition of the truth to completely swing the argument (as a matter of fact it has never happened, yet), so it gets criticised.
Then i try to justify the "blurt" (this is a step that should really have taken place earlier, but timeliness is a factor in commenting and you have to get something on before the thread dies) and mostly do this by defending what I can defend and ignoring what I can't. (I should admit to stuff I get called out on that is wrong, but that appears weak and defeatist. Next time maybe, I'll swallow my pride and do it anyway.)
Over the course of being called an idiot the defensible stuff will coalesce into something resembling a coherent, thought out opinion. So then i can judge that conclusion against the original post and justify it. Then I might conclude that I was wrong to be critical and make damn sure i read that author again (BTW - Emma I read all your stuff, I am probably going to buy* your book and all those threads i don't comment on strike me as being very well written). Or be convinced that in my own mind that what I have reasoned out is better than the author.
There are a number of drawbacks to this approach. Cheifly that conclusions are so long in coming that by the time I reach one, i've pissed off a lot of people.
* to read and then give as a present to a friend, their birthday is in July so if you could start discounting in early to mid June, okay? Or would it be better if I got a mate to buy it so it arrives with all pages intact?
-
It also doesn't address the fact that you've twice asserted that people should be obliged to mention things they don't remember, a position which makes, let's be clear, no sense at all.
It makes sense if the people are speaking in court. We all want trials to be honest and get at the truth. Therefore we want all people in the court to tell the truth, the whole truth.
People don't always tell the truth, because they either lie or they forget. We can't tell the difference between lying and honest forgetfulness. So when someone is forgetful on something it can be proved they should have known about then it is treated the same as a lie. And we cannot allow the court to be lied to, so the credibility given to the witness is reduced.
-
It's based on the comments they both voluntarily made to the media. Are you calling them liars?
No, I am calling you mistaken in jumping to the conclusion that they lack the basic human faculty of being able to recognise the difference between fantasy and reality. I think your reasoning to be sub par and very selective of the infomation presented. I think your conclusion sensationalist and likely to induce fear that the police/prosecution/judiciary are unable to have a sympathetic ear if the victim outlines the whole relevent truth.
-
Rather than give in to Victim Blame Bingo, however, perhaps a more entertaining strategy would be to make disclosure of sexual fantasy so commonplace (and as it normally is, rather trite and dull) that no-one would ever think to imply anything about your actual behaviour from it.
I contend that the "Victim Blame Bingo" is misinterpretation Emma has cooked up and induces unecessary fear of supposed consequences arising from admitting relevent fantasies to the police or prosecution.
I agree that the distinction between fantasy and reality should have been clear for the defence to articulate and the jury accept but clearly the defence counsel did not have confidence it would.
You mean the prosecution, I presume. The prosecution operate under different rules, they cannot present non-credible witnesses. They will have had difficulty presenting testimony from someone who authored the prime defence exhibits, but neglected to inform them of her authorship. Or (and this is purely speculation) who lied about ever having had such fantasies if she was ever questioned along such lines.