You have absolutely no idea, do you?
These are people in charge of government departments. And still, the press (which is overwhelmingly right-wing in the UK) treat people like Grayling and Williamson with kid gloves. The press are their defenders.
Remember when Grayling awarded a ferry contract to a company with no ferries, which then had to be cancelled, at a cost of 50 million to the taxpayer? Yeah, the tabloids scarcely covered it. No public abuse. But Abbott got some maths wrong, which cost the taxpayer nothing, and she wasn't even in government... cue the tabloids losing their minds and months of public harassment.
You've clearly never seen some of the political cartoonists works.
The kid gloves comment entirely depends on the press and who is doing it.
Grayling was ripped apart as a fool by many of the press for that one.
The tabloids are the tabloids and far from a lot of the UK press.
The claim about UK media being right wing? Compared to what Chairman Mao?
The Guardian
The Independent
Inews
Vice UK
They're very much left wing
The BBC
Channel 4 News
The Metro
Vice News
Get accused of being leftwing quite regularly. The BBC didn't get the nickname "Blair's Broadcasting Corporation" for nothing.
OK. So, you just believe that sensitive subjects shouldn't be mandatory for classes with behavioural issues, then.
I've still not actually seen anything from Labour saying it should be mandatory across all key stages etc. Corbyn proposed it be part of the curriculum, which doesn't mean mandatory across all grades/ key stages as you appear to be assuming.
Except it already is optional and not mandatory and Labour were kicking up a fuss because they were on about it not being visible enough etc. The only way to be certain it would be covered would be making it mandatory.
Can you sort out your quotes in that post please? In its current format I can't just quote and reply.
My bad on the quotes
Here's I'll do a shorter version save using quotes as such
You: An imminent threat, necessitating a physical protective counter-protest, is only credible if there is actually
anyone there to threaten it.
Me : So you don't bother locking your door?
You: Don't even need ropes or hacksaws to be a credible threat. But we're talking about literally nobody being there.
Me: Possibly because it was circulated on social media that people had turned out to protect it already
You: Right... and as has already been shown, the PM also promised it. And it wasn't in response to Labour saying anything about the proportion of female candidates.
Me: No the article points out it was a response to comments from Labour.
You: I haven't said anything inaccurate. The PM did promise half of all Tory candidates would be women. He did not promise this in response to anything Labour said about proportions of female candidates.
Me: Which would be sophistry at the end of the day
You: You, on the other hand, made various assumptions about context and content which turned out to be absolute bunkum, because you didn't bother to research the most basic details of what you were talking about.
Me: Only if you play at sophistry. In the world where words and saying have meanings and implications it's clear the context and implications behind comments and counter comments. Funny how you seem to understand that with Corbyn but not the rather deliberate set up attempts in this case against Boris
You: Give me a break, what a waste of time.
Me: Why would I give you a break when you're very much seemingly against giving me even an inch lol
In saner times, it would have been incomprehensible for an education secretary to oversee the non-stop schools debacles (especially the A-levels) and keep their job. But here's our brand new world. It's not to say that the right-wing press haven't included criticism of him, but it's distinctly at a remove: more a sort of "These people say Williamson is rubbish" rather than themselves calling "Williamson should go". They have absolutely protected him.
But the point here is that the anti-social justice mob care nothing other than that social justice is bad and that gays, women and racial minorities have it easy. All their "arguments" are nothing but rationalisations of this central mania, and aggressviely attacking people like Dianne Abbott for any and all tiny slip-up is a sport.
So what should the method have been not attempt to use system to adjust the scores at all? Not try to somehow normalise the stuff based on predictions from prior grades?
Who gives a shit? More importantly, its popular with the public. Labour should stick with it.
They should but then they'd lose the champagne socialists lol
Both Amazon and Google pay fuck-all in tax, but neither actually paid 0 in the UK to our knowledge. And their lowest proportionate taxes have been under the Tories.
Amazon did manage to pay zero corporation tax to the US for two years (under Trump), and zero corporation tax to Luxembourg, where most of its European business is declared.
I stand slightly corrected they paid so little they had to pay in the end actually £140+ Million which was both underpaid and apparently even due back tax that hadn't been collected
Firm will pay back a decade’s worth of taxes and bear greater tax burden in future to compensate for underpayment of UK taxes
www.theguardian.com
The scariest thing with the US is when the two parties agree on something. It means thousands are about to die
They do agree on a lot though, the funny thing is they just one to be the ones to do it lol
