So Brexit now needs parliamentary approval?

You got a link?

 

No link then

Find your own link mate. I have to find yours.

Edited February 17, 2017 by newjez

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/16/general-motors-boss-meets-government-crisis-talks-vauxhall-jobs/

Find your own link mate. I have to find yours.

There aint one???did you make it up

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/16/general-motors-boss-meets-government-crisis-talks-vauxhall-jobs/

ohhhh dear they have been on the edge for years....lets blame everything on brexit...this has nothing to do with brexit....next.

 

 

As for critical thinking, I was very lucky as we had staff who expressed it well in a lecture on my first day which I will never forget. The deputy head of department stated "Everything you are about to learn for the next three years is almost certainly wrong. Your job, will be, in the future to prove we are wrong. Our job is to give you the skills to do so".

You must be drowning in the depths of that irony.

ohhhh dear they have been on the edge for years....lets blame everything on brexit...this has nothing to do with brexit....next.

 

The salient point is that Vauxhall and Opel have not been in profit since 1999 according to the article, so obviously Brexit will contributed to this decision, they are offloading all of their European plants and the decision which will be made will reflect that the UK is no longer in the EU so why save plants and jobs here, and to pretend otherwise will just be a self serving denial of reality

Edited February 17, 2017 by BacktoDemocracy

The salient point is that Vauxhall and Opel have not been in profit since 1999 according to the article, so obviously Brexit will contributed to this decision, they are offloading all of their European plants and the decision which will be made will reflect that the UK is no longer in the EU so why save plants and jobs here, and to pretend otherwise will just be a self serving denial of reality

 

Have not been in profit for 18 years..hmmmmm, brexits fault is it....lol

The salient point is that Vauxhall and Opel have not been in profit since 1999 according to the article, so obviously Brexit will contributed to this decision, they are offloading all of their European plants and the decision which will be made will reflect that the UK is no longer in the EU so why save plants and jobs here, and to pretend otherwise will just be a self serving denial of reality

 

I know what it is like to grasp at straws, but this is a bit silly. The MD was on radio 2 today admitting it was nothing to do with brexit, but simply they have not been able to make a profit. Interestingly, he stated that the only thing that may keep it active is brexit and a lower pound. But hey, I guess you know better?

You must be drowning in the depths of that irony.

 

Why, that I haven't fallen for 40 years of progoganda? I pity those that have as it clouds everything.

Why, that I haven't fallen for 40 years of progoganda? I pity those that have as it clouds everything.

 

Do you never have doubts that you have fallen for the Brexit propoganda though?

 

Speaking for myself I can find plenty of faults with the EU for sure.

 

It is easier to find fault with what you have than to find faults with something you don't have - you only have to read posts of would-be migrants and returnees on PIO to see that.

 

 

Why, that I haven't fallen for 40 years of progoganda? I pity those that have as it clouds everything.

well, we could start with holding the daily mail up as the bastion of good journalism and start from there. You and objectivity don't belong in the same sentence. You seem to have an almost autistic view of the world. Edited February 17, 2017 by newjez

Do you never have doubts that you have fallen for the Brexit propoganda though?

 

Speaking for myself I can find plenty of faults with the EU for sure.

 

It is easier to find fault with what you have than to find faults with something you don't have - you only have to read posts of would-be migrants and returnees on PIO to see that.

 

I have been a very vocal supporter of leaving the EU for over 20 years. So, no I am not influenced by the brexit campaign.

well, we could start with holding the daily mail up as the bastion of good journalism and start from there. You and objectivity don't belong in the same sentence. You seem to have an almost autistic view of the world.

 

I can tell, just from your post you are a guardian / Indi reader which spread fake news. I have said the Mail has in its past done some important investagative journalism- which it has. While you seem to like to misconstrue facts. I imagine you are incensed by the Trump interview, or at least find it funny? Heck, the guardian and co have. But, have a think about this, the clip is about 2mins from a 77 min interview and if the journalists behaved anywhere near the same would have had their White House pass revoked under any other president. You fail to understand that portraying a quote without its whole is as bad as lying.

I can tell, just from your post you are a guardian / Indi reader which spread fake news. I have said the Mail has in its past done some important investagative journalism- which it has. While you seem to like to misconstrue facts. I imagine you are incensed by the Trump interview, or at least find it funny? Heck, the guardian and co have. But, have a think about this, the clip is about 2mins from a 77 min interview and if the journalists behaved anywhere near the same would have had their White House pass revoked under any other president. You fail to understand that portraying a quote without its whole is as bad as lying.

 

I watched almost the whole 77 minutes. Any 2 minute segment you take from that 77 minute press conference would have been shocking.

 

Personally I was not incensed by the Trump news conference and certainly did not find it funny. Tragic is the word that springs to mind.

I can tell, just from your post you are a guardian / Indi reader which spread fake news. I have said the Mail has in its past done some important investagative journalism- which it has. While you seem to like to misconstrue facts. I imagine you are incensed by the Trump interview, or at least find it funny? Heck, the guardian and co have. But, have a think about this, the clip is about 2mins from a 77 min interview and if the journalists behaved anywhere near the same would have had their White House pass revoked under any other president. You fail to understand that portraying a quote without its whole is as bad as lying.

the telegraph is my online paper of choice. I like their business section. I will read the independent or guardian if I want a different view. I would prefer to read the times, and it's the only paper I'll buy. If I find a daily mail on the train I will pick it up. They are useful for cleaning the kids shoes on.

 

And I don't know what you are talking about re the trump interview.

 

And the fact that you only think those two papers make up news sort of proves my point.

Edited February 17, 2017 by newjez

Wikipedia have banned the DM as a source of information :The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”. Oddly enough this does not appear to have been reported by the DM :twitcy:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

Do you never have doubts that you have fallen for the Brexit propoganda though?

 

Speaking for myself I can find plenty of faults with the EU for sure.

 

It is easier to find fault with what you have than to find faults with something you don't have - you only have to read posts of would-be migrants and returnees on PIO to see that.

 

Like.

 

The voice of reason.

 

There are issues with the EU but we will never influence them from outside, May is already not part of the inner circle, our exit may precipitate the rise of what is recognised on the Continent as the extreme right, but no one has been impolite enough to brand the Tories as veering towards the extreme right, but we have a govt which is closing down a child refugee program after taking 350 refugees after promising to take 3000, a govt which has commissioned a report which recommended draconian action against whistleblowers and journalists who dare to investigate wrongdoing by the state, it recommends increasing the penalty for just possession of deemed information from 2 to 14 years, the secret services have almost unlimited surveillance powers now.

 

Any of this sound familiar, and we have Prof? Minford and a clutch of redkneck Tories calling the Chancellor an economic illiterate, because he won't listen to their ideas of implementing total free trade, which they claim would bring enormous benefits by allowing our industries and other countries industries to trade freely without tariffs or other barriers to free trade, Minford is a name I remember from Thatchers era, so I suppose he's had a good 35 years to refine his one thought and hang onto it like any good sociopath, aided and abetted by the likes of Rees Mog, Redwood et al with their one thought of leave the EU and we'll be sorted.

 

I heard that other lunatic UKIPer Carswell espousing his political doctrine of total individual responsibility, where the state had no useful function in peoples lifes, he bailed out of the Conservatives because even they recognised a loony when he spouted that kind of guff, they knew he was a liability and blanked him.

 

Where is the the Opposition, away on a extended Leninist dream interpretation workshop, the sooner someone pushes him under a bus the better.

I watched almost the whole 77 minutes. Any 2 minute segment you take from that 77 minute press conference would have been shocking.

 

Personally I was not incensed by the Trump news conference and certainly did not find it funny. Tragic is the word that springs to mind.

 

Not tragic, excruciatingly embarrassing and frightening to watch a president struggling to tie thought processes to grown up language.

I watched almost the whole 77 minutes. Any 2 minute segment you take from that 77 minute press conference would have been shocking.

 

Personally I was not incensed by the Trump news conference and certainly did not find it funny. Tragic is the word that springs to mind.

must have missed this. Tbh I grown a bit bored with Trump. Is it worth the effort?

 

Had a quick read. Don't really like watching him talk. Was it the Jewish bit that they centred on?

 

The irony is that the worse he gets the stronger the USD gets, as it is a safe resort. CA Ching.

Edited February 18, 2017 by newjez

Actually, the syllabus is massively dumbed down. For example, in math, advanced trig, advanced mechanics and even complex number theory or not touched on in A level math. I commenced astrophysics at uni via a mature student foundation year that was based on what the A level syllabus used to be. We covered all of these. Today, students are put into a remedial math course they have to complete out of term time hours.

 

I have found the the same with other sciences - chemistry, physics and biology.

 

I undertook the A levels in some twice as I was not confident in remembering a lot over the years, but was very shocked.

there is a bit out there on remedial maths. Like this one from 13 years ago.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3342827/Half-of-all-universities-have-to-teach-remedial-maths-and-English.html

 

Most seem to be complaining about GCSE maths. Why a university would think GCSE maths are sufficient is beyond me. It it requires maths, they should require a level maths.

 

Tbh I think the a level system is very limited. Three subjects is not enough. We studied six in Australia. Maths and English were required.

Think perthbum was after a link? Surprised he couldn't find it with his vastly superior education. Ten years time kids will be doing their exams with colouring in pencils. Why is relevance always seen as a backward step?

 

Anyways, from that cesspit of left wing news...

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-jobs-migrants-idUKKBN15U24V

You don't understand, easier exams mean students of lesser ability can get an A as the exam and the way teachers almost give the answers means schools have 95% to 100% pass rates....harder exams means only say 35% will get an A it ain't rocket science.

OK. Oxbridge and the Russel group want to identify the top 1-2% of students so they can pick the cream of the crop. Other students may be able to do their course, but they have a reputation to maintain, and there is a demand, so they want the ability to choose. If the top 20% get A grades, it makes life harder. They want harder exams. Other universities want a good spread so they can choose over the spectrum. 40 years ago, the entry to university was very different to what it is now. The exams were harder to differentiate between the smaller top % of students who went to university. Now with a much larger percentage of students going to university, the exams have to be easier to differentiate over the larger spectrum. As I said, exams are there to differentiate between students today, not students forty years ago. You set a test for a purpose.

 

Now, if you want to argue that those students shouldn't be going to university then I would agree.

 

If you want to argue that Australia has a vastly superior education system than the UK, then I would agree.

 

Have GCSE and A levels got easier? I expect they have become more relevant. But seriously, if they keep getting easier and have done for the last fifty years, surely they would be doing colouring in exams by now. Don't confuse easy with relevant.

OK. Oxbridge and the Russel group want to identify the top 1-2% of students so they can pick the cream of the crop. Other students may be able to do their course, but they have a reputation to maintain, and there is a demand, so they want the ability to choose. If the top 20% get A grades, it makes life harder. They want harder exams. Other universities want a good spread so they can choose over the spectrum. 40 years ago, the entry to university was very different to what it is now. The exams were harder to differentiate between the smaller top % of students who went to university. Now with a much larger percentage of students going to university, the exams have to be easier to differentiate over the larger spectrum. As I said, exams are there to differentiate between students today, not students forty years ago. You set a test for a purpose.

 

Now, if you want to argue that those students shouldn't be going to university then I would agree.

 

If you want to argue that Australia has a vastly superior education system than the UK, then I would agree.

 

Have GCSE and A levels got easier? I expect they have become more relevant. But seriously, if they keep getting easier and have done for the last fifty years, surely they would be doing colouring in exams by now. Don't confuse easy with relevant.

 

Yes, I am sure you are making the relevant point, exams are now about a statistical spread allowing for a smoother distribution rather than bunching at the top and bottom.

 

But my concern is that we no longer are educating children, schools are being made part of the industrial production line with an emphasis on production of degree level students, partly in response to employer demands and in part because, socially, that is the qualification that one has to have to be acceptable. But tied up in that is that the universities have to constantly expand the range of degrees in order to expand demand so that their income increases, this is done knowing that job opportunities are limited or non existent in many of the fields for which they offer courses.

 

This to my mind is emphasising the class separation in the UK and also reducing down the numbers willing to accept training and education to become skilled trades and technicians, unlike on the continent where tradesmen and technicians have as much social esteem as anyone in a degree level occupation, this has other knock on effects, people without degrees are feeling more and more excluded and fall easy prey to extremism, and also the lack of training for skills and lack of status is I'm sure one of the drivers behind immigration.

Yes, I am sure you are making the relevant point, exams are now about a statistical spread allowing for a smoother distribution rather than bunching at the top and bottom.

 

But my concern is that we no longer are educating children, schools are being made part of the industrial production line with an emphasis on production of degree level students, partly in response to employer demands and in part because, socially, that is the qualification that one has to have to be acceptable. But tied up in that is that the universities have to constantly expand the range of degrees in order to expand demand so that their income increases, this is done knowing that job opportunities are limited or non existent in many of the fields for which they offer courses.

 

This to my mind is emphasising the class separation in the UK and also reducing down the numbers willing to accept training and education to become skilled trades and technicians, unlike on the continent where tradesmen and technicians have as much social esteem as anyone in a degree level occupation, this has other knock on effects, people without degrees are feeling more and more excluded and fall easy prey to extremism, and also the lack of training for skills and lack of status is I'm sure one of the drivers behind immigration.

I got talking to a bank clerk in m&s a while back, and it turns out you need a degree to do that job. Completely bloody pointless. I don't understand why so many kids need to go to uni, other than as you say, it is an industry. And we no longer fund nurses. Madness.