The news thread

[Malcolm]

27 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

And what happened to your high horse? Did somebody eat it?

you wouldn’t be allowed to do that now… it’s meat you see.  Although I have eaten horse before and it’s not much to write home about to be honest.

[vanderark14]

25 minutes ago, aaid said:

By the way, I wasn't having a go at you.  I *was* having a go at Malcolm.  I asked where you'd read that as I'd read different, that was all.

No worries aaid. 

[Hertsscot]

1 hour ago, phart said:

OK i decided to spend 5 mins.

Here we go:

13th of January 2023 Edinburgh council published an assessment report. Which had amendments on the 17th of January

Specifically they endorse the plant based treaty but "Note that although plant-based options will be promoted in schools, young people will still have choice in their meals."

Also "Across all primary school sites, there is one
meat free day per week, with secondary schools
providing 100% meat-free main meals one day
per week. This is delivered as part of the
Council’s commitment to create menus which
promote a balanced diet. A vegetarian or vegan
option is also available every day and red and
processed meats have been reduced in line with
the Scottish Government’s legislation on school
meals."

 

Also might put carbon imprint labelling on food, that's pretty much it. Without trying to sound cruel, Malcolm is the lowest information poster i encounter on a regular basis these days, so much so i just assume it is satire as the alternative is quite sad for him.

 

My previous job in England, the school meals were excellent. If there were school meal awards they would have been contenders. They had a regular meat free Monday (pasta sauces, veggie curries, bean burritos etc.) What I liked, forgetting the health or environmental benefits, was the way in which it expanded the kids horizons about what is actually nice to eat.

[phart]

9 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

My previous job in England, the school meals were excellent. If there were school meal awards they would have been contenders. They had a regular meat free Monday (pasta sauces, veggie curries, bean burritos etc.) What I liked, forgetting the health or environmental benefits, was the way in which it expanded the kids horizons about what is actually nice to eat.

Sounds a lot tastier than my sausage roll, chips, and beans I used to get most days.

[RDFH64]

8 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Still boils my piss that in 2014 Better Together were stating as fact Scots would lose their pensions if they went independent. After the No vote returned a few years later Westminster bumped retirement age up above the average lifespan age of Scots.

They try to make out the state pensions a wee bonus from the government but we’ve contributed to it all our working lives, it’s nae a gift it’s a return for all our contributions 🤬

[RDFH64]

5 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Pensioners have already invested towards their own pension. If governments over the years had invested those contributions wisely, instead of squandering it on stuff that ordinary folk don't need, then we wouldn't have this problem. This idea that todays workers have to pay for previous generations of workers pensions has only come about because our governments have been ripping us off for generations.

👏👏👏

[Hertsscot]

59 minutes ago, phart said:

Sounds a lot tastier than my sausage roll, chips, and beans I used to get most days.

I'd spent 28 years taking a packed lunch because the school dinners weren't great. Arrived at my new school and didn't take a packed lunch for all four years I was there!  I'm now getting back into making lunches, too cold for sandwiches so homemade dhal heated up in the office microwave is the current 'go to'.

[Malcolm]

To be fair, I eat vegan once or twice a week and it is normally delicious, but one should have the choice to eat what you want and if thats beef twice a day then so be it.

[Malcolm]

Sickening video of an assault within a school circulating on twitter. Willie rennie raised this within the scottish parliament today.   Why did the teacher not intervene? If my daughter had been assaulted like this i cant imagine how i would have reacted. I hope police Scotland are on this and the girl is off to jail.

it begs the question about what the snp are doing with their policy of not excluding violent pupils.  Personally i would like to see the belt back in schools and nut jobs expelled sin die.

 

 

[aaid]

36 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Sickening video of an assault within a school circulating on twitter. Willie rennie raised this within the scottish parliament today.   Why did the teacher not intervene? If my daughter had been assaulted like this i cant imagine how i would have reacted. I hope police Scotland are on this and the girl is off to jail.

it begs the question about what the snp are doing with their policy of not excluding violent pupils.  Personally i would like to see the belt back in schools and nut jobs expelled sin die.

 

 

are violent videos your sort of thing?

[Malcolm]

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

are violent videos your sort of thing?

No but twitter is

[Dave78]

Thought the latest Media Lens article was worth sharing...


 

Harry The 'Traitor' And Lynch 'The Grinch' - The Corporate Media's Automatic Smear Machine

19th January 2023

If we were to choose a hill to die on, it would probably not be in defence of a British prince. In truth, we don’t need to like or support – and may even abhor – the targets of media bias highlighted in our analyses. Our goal is simply to provide examples that most clearly expose the propaganda function of ‘mainstream’ media. Inevitably, that involves our focusing on thorns in the Establishment’s side. It should be no surprise that there is actually much that divides us from, say, the fiercely patriotic and pro-war (as opposed to pacifistic) former US Marine and weapons inspector Scott Ritter; from Guardian-partnering celebrity guru and Hollywood actor Russell Brand; from classic, tongue-biting Labour Party state executive Jeremy Corbyn. And if we have deep problems with the modern state as such – with its toxic mix of militant nationalism, fake religion and climate-trashing industrial ‘growth’ – what to say of states run as authoritarian, militarised oligarchies by the likes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Vladimir Putin and other Official Enemies of the West? We rarely emphasise our visceral opposition to these systems of power, not because we are ‘quislings’ or ‘apologists’ – or because ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ – but because doing so feeds propaganda enabling the far more lethal militarised oligarchy that is the imperial United States. As Noam Chomsky observed: ‘So when American dissidents criticize the atrocities of some enemy state like Cuba or Vietnam, it’s no secret what the effects of that criticism are going to be: it’s not going to have any effect whatsoever on the Cuban regime, for example, but certainly will help the torturers in Washington and Miami to keep inflicting their campaign of suffering on the Cuban population [i.e. through the US-led embargo]. Well, that is something I do not think a moral person would want to contribute to.’ (Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, New Press, 2002, pp.287-88) Our personal feelings about the examples we cite are irrelevant to the case we are making for the bias of the state-corporate Medium. So when our critics insist it is absurd for us to ‘defend’ Harry, or ‘apologism’ for us to expose media bias on Putin, the criticism is irrelevant at best and, in the case of Putin, an exact reversal of the truth. While the question of royalty might seem trivial, the vast extent of press coverage indicates that this is not the view of established power. Royalty is not just about tourism and distracting the public; it is the issue where nationalism, class control, inequality, militarism, organised religious fakery and biocidal corporate profit-maximising meet. Church, state, military, media, business and royalty are all mutually-supportive. It is revealing to see how these centres of power spring to each other’s defence against perceived threats. Whatever we think of the Harry and Meghan Markle saga, it matters when the son of the current king and the brother of the future king writes in his new book, ‘Spare’: ‘Does the Crown generate tourism income that benefits all? Of course. Does it also rest upon lands obtained and secured when the system was unjust and wealth was generated by exploited workers and thuggery, annexation and enslaved people? Can anyone deny it?’ (Harry, ‘Spare’, Penguin, e-book version, 2023, p.322) Harry’s book arguably merits some attention, if only for his comments on the war in Afghanistan in which he was a combatant: ‘Some commanders often said, publicly and privately, that they feared every Taliban killed would create three more, so they were extra cautious. At times we felt the commanders were right: we were creating more Taliban.’ (p.183) He added: ‘Afghanistan was a war of mistakes, a war of enormous collateral damage – thousands of innocents killed and maimed, and that always haunted us.’ This is a significant confession from a member of the UK’s 3 Regiment Army Air Corp who is also fifth in the line of succession to the British throne. The British press made great play of Harry’s confessed tally of ‘enemy combatants’ killed. He wrote:  ‘So, my number: Twenty-five. It wasn’t a number that gave me any satisfaction. But neither was it a number that made me feel ashamed. Naturally, I’d have preferred not to have that number on my military CV, on my mind, but by the same token I’d have preferred to live in a world in which there was no Taliban, a world without war.’ (p.184) In reporting this, the BBC brazenly reversed the truth of Harry’s intended meaning:   ‘In his memoir, the Duke of Sussex describes killing 25 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan as “chess pieces taken off the board”. ‘Ex-colonel Tim Collins said that was “not how you behave in the army”.’ In what must be a first, the BBC actually cited the Taliban in support of its smear: ‘Responding to the prince’s comments, a senior Taliban leader Anas Haqqani tweeted: “Mr Harry! The ones you killed were not chess pieces, they were humans; they had families who were waiting for their return… ‘“I don’t expect that the (International Criminal Court) will summon you or the human rights activists will condemn you, because they are deaf and blind for you.”’ The BBC cited Collins again: ‘He has badly let the side down. We don’t do notches on the rifle butt. We never did.’ In fact, on the same page that he revealed he had killed 25 people in Afghanistan, Harry wrote: ‘So my goal from the day I arrived was never to go to bed doubting that I’d done the right thing, that my targets had been correct, that I was firing on Taliban and only Taliban, no civilians nearby. I wanted to return to Britain with all my limbs, but more, I wanted to go home with my conscience intact. Which meant being aware of what I was doing, and why I was doing it, at all times.’ (p.184) Harry emphasised that he had been trained to dehumanise enemy fighters as ‘chess pieces’ precisely because it would otherwise have been impossible for him to kill people viewed as ordinary human beings. In other words, whatever we think of Harry and his ugly role in this catastrophic war, these are not the words of someone who is coldly bragging about collecting victims as ‘notches on the rifle butt’. Significantly, the death toll is the only aspect of Harry’s discussion of Afghanistan that we have seen discussed in reviews and commentary. To his credit, Harry pours scorn on ‘media barons’, primarily Murdoch, but also ‘the impossibly Dickensian-sounding Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere’, controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail and General Trust, a media conglomerate that includes the Daily Mail. Harry writes: ‘It was around this time that I began to think Murdoch was evil. No, strike that. I began to know that he was. First-hand. Once you’ve been chased by someone’s henchmen through the streets of a busy modern city you lose all doubt about where they stand on the Great Moral Continuum. All my life I’d heard jokes about the links between royal misbehaviour and centuries of inbreeding, but it was then that I realised: Lack of genetic diversity was nothing compared to press gaslighting. Marrying your cousin is far less dicey than becoming a profit centre for Murdoch Inc. ‘Of course I didn’t care for Murdoch’s politics, which were just to the right of the Taliban’s. And I didn’t like the harm he did each and every day to Truth, his wanton desecration of objective facts. Indeed, I couldn’t think of a single human being in the 300,000-year history of the species who’d done more damage to our collective sense of reality.’ (p.169) Harry excoriates ‘the ravages and depredations of the press’ (p.201): ‘For generations Britons had said with a wry laugh: Ah, well, of course our newspapers are shit – but what can you do?’ (p.143) This isn’t Noam Chomsky, or even Owen Jones, but these are meaningful comments reaching a mass audience from a high-profile figure. If nothing else, they provide well-intentioned reporters and journalists with an excuse for highlighting these crucial issues. Alas, as we will see, such journalism is in short supply. Propaganda doesn’t do nuance. It must be delivered with complete certainty and high moral outrage. Thus, on his Talk TV show, Piers Morgan said: ‘There’s one thing to do with this book. Rather than buy it and feather his greedy little nest, do what I’m gonna do now – take “Spare” and chuck it where it belongs, in the bin.’ Whereupon Morgan threw the book into a bin. Harry has been branded a ‘traitor’. From the moral high ground, Daily Mail consultant editor, Andrew Pierce, opined: ‘Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ for thirty pieces of silver. This bloke has betrayed the Queen, his brother, his father, the future Queen Consort, for tens of millions of pounds. It’s all about money. His sense of entitlement is staggering.’ Happily, the Daily Mail has no grubby financial motive for endlessly covering Harry’s story; as is true of its reporting, commentary and ‘sidebar of shame’ more generally. Times columnist Giles Coren, whose career has doubtless not benefited from the fact that his father was the much-loved journalist, humourist and BBC TV personality, Alan Coren, commented: ‘Harry is a very, very stupid man. A man with a barely functioning IQ in the sort of middle 90s, who in real life wouldn’t be able to get a job, or to have a family, or do anything.’ Also projecting freely, Nigel Farage, GB News presenter and founder of the Brexit Party, raged: ‘It is ghastly at every level. Can you imagine trashing your own family, trashing your own country, trashing the commonwealth, trashing your grandmother’s legacy… and doing it all for money? I think the whole thing, frankly, is despicable.’ Businessman and ‘activist’ Adam Brooks lightened the mood: ‘[Harry’s] a whingeing, woke, cry-baby… I actually – it’s quite a strong word – but I think I hate, I hate Harry for what he’s doing to the UK.’ Journalist A.N. Wilson even played the Hitler Card: ‘I’m not suggesting he’s as bad as Hitler, but it is like reading Mein Kampf, in that Hitler thinks he’s a hero and you put the book down with absolute disgust. And you do put this book down with total disgust.’ BBC viewers will recall how Jennie Bond worked as the BBC’s cautious and deferential royal correspondent for 14 years. In response to Harry’s book, we saw a different Bond: ‘Do you know, can we maybe think that his brain is so addled by, well, by the trauma of his life – because he is traumatised – um, and by the many, many drugs he’s taken?’  When Female ‘Left-Liberal’ Columnists Attack It is no surprise that the female columnists of the liberal press were lined up to pour scorn on this male target of Establishment ire, much as they had been lined up to pour scorn on Julian Assange, Jeremy Corbyn, Russell Brand and others. In the Observer, Rachel Cooke declared herself bewildered by ‘a book that must rank as one of the most bizarre I’ve ever read’. It was the product of ‘A myopic, self-obsessed, non-empathic kind of person’. With sexual ridicule to the fore, Cooke mocked Harry’s mention of his ‘todger’, his ‘thing’, and how he revealed he had once ‘peed his pants’. Cooke indicated that Harry had certainly failed the Observer test on ‘feminism’. In the Guardian, Marina Hyde also focused on the ‘circumcision/frostbitten penis status of princes that might as well have been subheaded It’s A Royal Cockout’. Hyde at least managed to mention Afghanistan: ‘during the conflict in Afghanistan he killed 25 Taliban fighters out of his $50m helicopter, a form of warfare which even the most committed Taliban-loathers among us always had to admit was a bit asymmetric’. This was a typically callous reference from Hyde to the barely comprehensible carnage inflicted by the West on Afghanistan for two decades. Would we describe the atomic bombing of Hiroshima as ‘a bit asymmetric’? How about the Nazis’ crushing of the Warsaw ghetto? Hyde added: ‘Then again, the Taliban won in the end…’ Again, an ugly, flippant comment. Can anyone in Afghanistan be said to have ‘won’ at the end of the West’s devastating invasion and occupation? In the Independent, Lucy Pavia also commented repeatedly on ‘todgers’, on how Harry’s description of the state of ‘his frostbitten penis after a trip to the North Pole culminates in an odd admission that he covered it in Elizabeth Arden and thought of his mother, who once used the cream’. Perhaps it is the implied interpretation that is ‘odd’. From the comfort of her corporate office chair, Pavia wrote: ‘Passages about army exploits and travels to Africa are worthy but a little bloated.’ Clearly not ‘worthy’ enough for Pavia to make any mention of Harry’s comments on the war in Afghanistan. Supposedly further to the right on the media ‘spectrum’, former long-time Guardian columnist, Hadley Freeman, now writing for The Times, dismissed this ‘strange, petty, self-inflicted seeping wound of a book’, an effort that is ‘like so much in Harry’s self-centred but utterly unself-aware life’. Ironic comments from someone who contributed to some of the Guardian’s worst propaganda excesses, and who has ascended even higher up the selfless, self-aware moral stairway to become, as Harry might say, ‘a profit centre for Murdoch Inc’. The book, said Freeman, is ‘comic and pathetic. Hamlet was the aspiration, the Fool is, heartbreakingly, the result’. Yet again, sexual ridicule was a theme: ‘Spare’ has earned Harry ‘general mockery, headlines about dead Afghans and his frostbitten penis’. Freeman noted that the book resolves the issue of ‘whether Harry and his brother are circumcised’; she wonders out loud to Harry whether he’s aware the book ‘makes you sound a bit of a tosser.’ If these commentators struggled to find ammunition to fully humiliate their subject, it is for the reason described by Anita Singh in her rather more balanced review in the right-wing Telegraph. Writing like a normal human being, rather than a hater, Singh noted of Harry:  ‘His ghostwriter, JR Moehringer, has done a very good job here of making his subject seem like the sane one in the story… ‘Spare is well-constructed and fluently written. Harry would be the first to admit that Moehringer has done the hard graft here, and perhaps deployed some artistic licence.’ Indeed, Moehringer was the writer behind Andre Agassi’s stunning autobiography, ‘Open’, so this should be no surprise. Harry, then, at least deserves credit for choosing a ghostwriter with the talent to make his book more difficult to smear than it might otherwise have been.   Do You Love The Limelight? Inevitably, Harry has been diagnosed as suffering from ‘narcissism’. In the Express, Leo McKinstry commented: ‘But his descent into American psychobabble has patently only fed his jealousy, rage, egomania and sense of grievance. Rather than making him more balanced, therapy appears to have been a catalyst for his rampant narcissism.’ Alexander Larman, the books editor for Spectator World, wrote of: ‘The unbelievable narcissism of Harry and Meghan’s Netflix documentary’ Before Christmas, amid ongoing rail strikes, renowned therapist Piers Morgan sensed that Mick Lynch, general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, was afflicted by the same disorder: ‘Mick “The Grinch” Lynch is beginning to believe his own over-hyped bullish*t. Loves being a media star, so has zero incentive to resolve the strikes as that would deprive him of the TV oxygen he craves.’ The BBC featured two near-identical headlines on its home page on the same day. The first: ‘The union firebrand accused of stealing Christmas’ The second, with a different picture: ‘The firebrand accused of stealing Christmas’ Matt Frei of Channel 4 News asked Lynch: ‘Do you love the limelight?’ Lynch replied: ‘No, I’ve been put here by circumstances, not by my own choice… I just want to get on with my job and carry on running our union.’ We asked Frei: ‘Do *you* love the limelight, @mattfrei? You’ve been hogging it for decades. You look very comfortable; you must enjoy these moments. Are you indulging your craving for attention?’ Frei ignored us, of course. To his credit, Lynch has done a tremendous job of neutralising media smears by exposing the journalists’ tactics in real time to viewers. (See here, here and here.) In 2019, the Daily Mail devoted four pages to Julian Assange, reporting the ‘downfall of a narcissist’ who had been removed from ‘inside his fetid lair’ to finally ‘face justice’. Even when arguing against Assange’s extradition to the US, former BBC political presenter Andrew Neil wrote in the Daily Mail last June: ‘Assange is no crusader in shining armour. He is reckless, cavalier with people’s lives, narcissistic, a “sexual predator”. Careless of his personal hygiene, he is often his own worst enemy. He lets down his friends and repels his allies.’ If we pay attention, we’ll find that establishment enemies are smeared in essentially the same way. Thus, in the Sunday Times, Katie Glass described patently harmless hippy, Russell Brand, as ‘an exhibitionistic narcissist obsessed with celebrity’. (Katie Glass, ‘The ultimate Marmite Brand,’ Sunday Times, 22 September 2013) Thus, in The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin condemned courageous whistle-blower Edward Snowden as ‘a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison’. Bob Schieffer of CBS commented: ‘I think what we have in Edward Snowden is just a narcissistic young man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us.’ Glenn Greenwald who, unlike most of the critics, has met Snowden and worked closely with him, put this in perspective with his usual élan: ‘One of the most darkly hilarious things to watch is how government apologists and media servants are driven by total herd behavior: they all mindlessly adopt the same script and then just keep repeating it because they see others doing so and, like parrots, just mimic what they hear… Hordes of people who had no idea what “narcissism” even means – and who did not know the first thing about Snowden – kept repeating this word over and over because that became the cliche used to demonize him.’ Caution, however, is advised. The Daily Banter blog noted: ‘Glenn Greenwald has been looking to take down Obama and feed his own depthless narcissism for years now. He just managed to accomplish one of these goals in spades…’ On one level, all of this is absurd. But there is a serious point – whenever any individual or group, anywhere, threatens powerful interests in any way, the corporate media can be relied upon to unleash a flood of toxic abuse to promote public hostility and so neutralise the threat. This is not a conspiracy: the system selects for senior managers and junior cogs who just ‘understand’ who needs to be served, placated and reviled, if profit is to be maximised. In truth, it is a kind of runaway smear machine, functioning almost automatically. The bad news, of course, in the age of looming climate collapse, is that this machine is doing a superb job of neutralising the voices of expert climate scientists desperately trying to warn of impending disaster. The same confident, jokey, worldly, abusive, casual dismissals are preventing scientists from being heard and the public from taking them seriously. It is up to all of us, both inside and outside the system, to do whatever we can to undermine this lethal propaganda. DE

[Hertsscot]

1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

Sickening video of an assault within a school circulating on twitter. Willie rennie raised this within the scottish parliament today.   Why did the teacher not intervene? If my daughter had been assaulted like this i cant imagine how i would have reacted. I hope police Scotland are on this and the girl is off to jail.

it begs the question about what the snp are doing with their policy of not excluding violent pupils.  Personally i would like to see the belt back in schools and nut jobs expelled sin die.

I have got no idea whether this is getting worse or better, or whether Scotland is any worse than other parts of the UK. These incidents are rare and one of the differences is we see it now and it's captured on phones. I remember at least one very violent incident from one school I taught in where a sixth form student took off his belt and decided to use it as a weapon against someone. That was a nice school in rural Essex.

I don't think the belt (teachers that is!) is a solution but schools need to be safe places for pupils (and staff) both physically and emotionally. I think there's an interesting anthropology in this debate. Is bad behaviour due to some unmet need and poorly behaved students just need to be loved and understood or is it because they have not learnt to behave and need clear meaningful sanctions? I suspect it's not an either/or.

[Malcolm]

31 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

I have got no idea whether this is getting worse or better, or whether Scotland is any worse than other parts of the UK. These incidents are rare and one of the differences is we see it now and it's captured on phones. I remember at least one very violent incident from one school I taught in where a sixth form student took off his belt and decided to use it as a weapon against someone. That was a nice school in rural Essex.

I don't think the belt (teachers that is!) is a solution but schools need to be safe places for pupils (and staff) both physically and emotionally. I think there's an interesting anthropology in this debate. Is bad behaviour due to some unmet need and poorly behaved students just need to be loved and understood or is it because they have not learnt to behave and need clear meaningful sanctions? I suspect it's not an either/or.

yeah, I think you are right although I lean towards the latter.  I think the lefties have moved us far too far from proper punishment.  Indeed, there is no reason why punishment can be applied while also trying to understand what’s driving that individuals behaviour.

[slasher]

2 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Sickening video of an assault within a school circulating on twitter. Willie rennie raised this within the scottish parliament today.   Why did the teacher not intervene? If my daughter had been assaulted like this i cant imagine how i would have reacted. I hope police Scotland are on this and the girl is off to jail.

it begs the question about what the snp are doing with their policy of not excluding violent pupils.  Personally i would like to see the belt back in schools and nut jobs expelled sin die.

 

 

There’s much less violence in schools than there used to be. However when there is there is much less chance of staff getting physically involved. Too many staff have been thrown under the bus with allegations which generally result in a suspension I.e guilty until proven innocent.

Historically children were treated like shit but we have gone so far to redress the balance no one knows where the line is any more. It’s not so much of a snp failing, it’s all part of the world we live in and I don’t see anyone else who’s got it all right 🤷🏼‍♂️

[aaid]

Twitter somehow decided that I want to see that video and the person who posted it is Jim Spence.

I don’t follow Jim Spence, so thanks Jim and thanks Elon Musk.  

[jailender]

 David Crosby gone. Another legend, been a bad week for music.  

[ParisInAKilt]

[vanderark14]

10 hours ago, aaid said:

are violent videos your sort of thing?

School kid batters another school kid = snp at fault.

@Malcolm you really are making a fool of yourself 

[Malcolm]

7 hours ago, slasher said:

There’s much less violence in schools than there used to be. However when there is there is much less chance of staff getting physically involved. Too many staff have been thrown under the bus with allegations which generally result in a suspension I.e guilty until proven innocent.

Historically children were treated like shit but we have gone so far to redress the balance no one knows where the line is any more. It’s not so much of a snp failing, it’s all part of the world we live in and I don’t see anyone else who’s got it all right 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

yeah, I saw a number of teachers comment that they wouldn’t get involved and I was shocked.  The girl that was assaulted apparently suffered a broken jaw.  This happened in a classroom with no teachers intervention.  Could you imagine your reaction if your own child suffered a broken jaw at school in a classroom - the temptation for retribution would be enormous, particularly if you saw the school and police do nothing.
 

this business of leaving feral kids to run around unchecked “cos they come from a difficult background or home life” has to stop, with stiff school/police intervention.  That attacker girl will hopefully go to jail for assault.

Teachers should also be given means to intervene.

 

 

[Malcolm]

9 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

School kid batters another school kid = snp at fault.

@Malcolm you really are making a fool of yourself 

kids battering each other has gone on since the beginning of time.  Teachers doing nothing about it is a new thing.  We are far too soft on little neds trying to give them every chance.  That individual should now be in police custody for assault.

 

[killiefaetheferry]

Means? Sorry, are you alluding to permission or equipment? Or something else? 

[slasher]

1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

 

yeah, I saw a number of teachers comment that they wouldn’t get involved and I was shocked.  The girl that was assaulted apparently suffered a broken jaw.  This happened in a classroom with no teachers intervention.  Could you imagine your reaction if your own child suffered a broken jaw at school in a classroom - the temptation for retribution would be enormous, particularly if you saw the school and police do nothing.
 

this business of leaving feral kids to run around unchecked “cos they come from a difficult background or home life” has to stop, with stiff school/police intervention.  That attacker girl will hopefully go to jail for assault.

Teachers should also be given means to intervene.

 

 

Sadly I don’t think we can go back the way @Malcolm. Teachers are no longer in ‘loco parentis’ and frankly they don’t want to be.

The whole business of integrating kids with behavioural difficulties into mainstream education is a tricky one. It works for many and the success stories are the ones you don’t hear about. However, sadly it’s true that those it doesn’t work for can cause havoc before they either drift away or become old enough to fall into the arms of the justice system.

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, killiefaetheferry said:

Means? Sorry, are you alluding to permission or equipment? Or something else? 

Tasers

[vanderark14]

1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

kids battering each other has gone on since the beginning of time.  Teachers doing nothing about it is a new thing.  We are far too soft on little neds trying to give them every chance.  That individual should now be in police custody for assault.

 

You are still living in 1980 and probably think it was some sort of utopia too. Teachers doing nothing isn't actually that new, this started around 25 years ago when I was still at school, there was the odd teacher who had no problem intervening but the mid 1990s is when things got tougher for teachers, I know because I was cheeky to some teachers knowing they couldn't do a thing to me.

I can see both sides of this, the schools have to question whether expelling the kid committing an assault should be expelled, can the kids behaviour be improved? I am talking in general terms here not about this specific incident. I would need to read more about this incidentconsidering you are well known for posting hyperbolic shite.