Bolitics The New Condem Government

[StefanAVFC]

I just think Boris is a perfect name for a Schnauzer

[Chindie]

I must admit pretty much everything work related i'm doing at the moment is pretty much contributing to an overall goal of having property ownership.

[snowychap]

Generally directing towards that 'goal' or actually convincing you of inherent benefits?

[Chindie]

Generally directing towards that 'goal' or actually convincing you of inherent benefits?

A goal. I'm increasingly keen on having my own 'patch', the benefits or otherwise are less pressing, beyond the fact that renting does seem like wasting cash. It's a long way off, barring miracles at bare minimum 2 years I think, but that goal is there and that's what I'm working towards as the long term aim.

[StefanAVFC]

I'm in the situation where I can live at home until I have saved enough to get my own place.

 

And kinda off topic but relevant to last page

 

Boris

[peterms]

On Gove and the use of ex-military chaps in education, I think I see where he's coming from. 

 

The problem:

 

...Gove said men considering teaching were deterred by a fear of rules that made contact between adults and children "a legal minefield".

 

The government was planning to start a programme this autumn encouraging former members of the armed forces to take up teaching, specifically to ensure more male role models, Gove said...

 

A minefield, you say?   Hmmm...

 

...Some £600,000 of the funding is going to Commando Joes' in Cheshire; £700,000 to Challenger Troop in Tunbridge Wells, Kent; £400,000 to Knowsley Skills Academy in Prescot, Merseyside; and £200,000 to Newcastle-based SkillForce.

 

All four use activities including one-to-one mentoring, military-style obstacle courses and team-building exercises.

 

They also help re-integrate pupils and prepare them for post-16 courses or jobs, as well as helping primary school children in their move to secondary school.

 

Former bomb disposal expert Mike Hamilton, director of Commando Joes', said the £600,000 package will help expand it nationwide.

 

The 32-year-old, who served in the Royal Engineers for eight years - including two tours of Iraq and one of Afghanistan - formed the company after leaving the army.

 

As well as a personal trainer, he was a member of a bomb disposal squad - on one occasion helping clear a whole minefield in an Iraqi village so children could play safely.

 

He went on to work as part of a recruitment team in the UK and during visits to schools noticed a need to help disillusioned pupils...

 

 

[tonyh29]

I've no idea if it will work but if these army bods can install some discipline into some of these teenagers then if nothing else it will have been worth it

[peterms]

I've no idea if it will work but if these army bods can install some discipline into some of these teenagers then if nothing else it will have been worth it

 

There are two different schemes.  The one I mentioned above is about getting kids excluded from school to take part in physical activities and so on.  For some, perhaps those who may be unable to cope with lessons, unable to read, but who like physical things, that might be a way of engaging them.

 

The second scheme, about fast-tracking ex-officers into teaching jobs in schools, is barking mad.  The thinking behind it, to use the term loosely, seems to be along these lines.  In the wake of the riots, and aware that there is a discipline problem in schools, and knowing that the government will be getting rid of a lot of forces people who have been trained to accept hierarchy, authority, and discipline, Mr Gove put two and two together and got three penguins and a lampshade.

[blandy]

 

On Gove and the use of ex-military chaps in education, I think I see where he's coming from. 

 

The problem:

 

...Gove said men considering teaching were deterred by a fear of rules that made contact between adults and children "a legal minefield".

 

The government was planning to start a programme this autumn encouraging former members of the armed forces to take up teaching, specifically to ensure more male role models, Gove said...

 

A minefield, you say?   Hmmm...

 

...Some £600,000 of the funding is going to Commando Joes' in Cheshire; £700,000 to Challenger Troop in Tunbridge Wells, Kent; £400,000 to Knowsley Skills Academy in Prescot, Merseyside; and £200,000 to Newcastle-based SkillForce.

 

All four use activities including one-to-one mentoring, military-style obstacle courses and team-building exercises.

 

They also help re-integrate pupils and prepare them for post-16 courses or jobs, as well as helping primary school children in their move to secondary school.

 

Former bomb disposal expert Mike Hamilton, director of Commando Joes', said the £600,000 package will help expand it nationwide.

 

The 32-year-old, who served in the Royal Engineers for eight years - including two tours of Iraq and one of Afghanistan - formed the company after leaving the army.

 

As well as a personal trainer, he was a member of a bomb disposal squad - on one occasion helping clear a whole minefield in an Iraqi village so children could play safely.

 

He went on to work as part of a recruitment team in the UK and during visits to schools noticed a need to help disillusioned pupils...

 

I'm not quite sure of the point you're making (or the Huff is making) Peter. I think it's perfectly conceivable for people leaving the military to go on to careers in education. I don't think that giving some encouragement in that direction is necessarily a bad thing, either. There are people from the military who would be very well suited in many respects to education and teaching (and plenty who wouldn't be).

 

There are aspects of military training that read across to teacher training - as there are too with Policing, for example.

 

People from the military, with a talent for working with kids and the desire to do so could definitely offer something to the teaching profession.

 

I sense with Gove an underlying f-wittery, in as much as I wonder whether he could come up with a way to implement a kind of appropriate level of re-training, and I wonder if it isn't more about a yearning to "show those wishy washy lefty teachers a bit of military discipline", rather than a coherently considered plan, but as a thought it's not bonkers.

[peterms]

I'm not quite sure of the point you're making (or the Huff is making) Peter. I think it's perfectly conceivable for people leaving the military to go on to careers in education. I don't think that giving some encouragement in that direction is necessarily a bad thing, either. There are people from the military who would be very well suited in many respects to education and teaching (and plenty who wouldn't be).

 

There are aspects of military training that read across to teacher training - as there are too with Policing, for example.

 

People from the military, with a talent for working with kids and the desire to do so could definitely offer something to the teaching profession.

 

I sense with Gove an underlying f-wittery, in as much as I wonder whether he could come up with a way to implement a kind of appropriate level of re-training, and I wonder if it isn't more about a yearning to "show those wishy washy lefty teachers a bit of military discipline", rather than a coherently considered plan, but as a thought it's not bonkers.

 

I was being facetious.  As I say above, that scheme might offer something to some of the kids excluded from school.

 

As for the other part, there's no problem with ex-military people retraining as teachers, if they are the right type of people to become teachers.  As you say, some are and some aren't, just like farmers, accountants, artists or anything else.  No surprise there.

 

What doesn't make sense, at all, is the fast-tracking.  Having come up with a teacher training programme designed to impart the skills and knowledge required to teach, that is now partly bypassed not because someone demonstrates they have done equivalent studies and demonstrated equivalent proficiency (like some courses of study partly count towards a degree, for example), but on the basis that someone was in the forces and must therefore be presumed to have certain qualities, characteristics, experience or whatever.

 

I wonder what teachers will think about working alongside someone who's missed part of the teacher training qualification on this basis?  Probably they would be ok with it if the person turns out to be an excellent teacher, and very resentful and even more demoralised if they don't.  Gove may think it's about valuing military experience.  Teachers are likely to see it as devaluing their training.

 

Of course, if the skills are so transferable, it would work the other way around.  Ex-teachers fast-tracked into officer positions, cut short a couple of years of training.  But that won't be happening.

 

I agree, it's actually about sending signals.  Very unhelpful ones, in my view.  It's playing to his constituency of support with mood music, not a serious educational policy.  Shallow, cynical, short-sighted, and counterproductive.

[blandy]

...What doesn't make sense, at all, is the fast-tracking.  Having come up with a teacher training programme designed to impart the skills and knowledge required to teach, that is now partly bypassed not because someone demonstrates they have done equivalent studies and demonstrated equivalent proficiency (like some courses of study partly count towards a degree, for example), but on the basis that someone was in the forces and must therefore be presumed to have certain qualities, characteristics, experience or whatever.

 

I wonder what teachers will think about working alongside someone who's missed part of the teacher training qualification on this basis?  Probably they would be ok with it if the person turns out to be an excellent teacher, and very resentful and even more demoralised if they don't.  Gove may think it's about valuing military experience.  Teachers are likely to see it as devaluing their training.

 

Of course, if the skills are so transferable, it would work the other way around.  Ex-teachers fast-tracked into officer positions, cut short a couple of years of training.  But that won't be happening.

 

I agree, it's actually about sending signals.  Very unhelpful ones, in my view.  It's playing to his constituency of support with mood music, not a serious educational policy.  Shallow, cynical, short-sighted, and counterproductive.

Well....on the fast tracking, I think there is a case for it. Here's why: If you take someone from Uni or college who wants to be a teacher, they will need to gain the knowledge of communication skills, of how to impart information, how to co-operate in drawing up planned lesson and structured presentation, how to succinctly get something across - and many other things which in my experience many, if not all, ex-military people will already have the knowledge and ability to do. So for me it's not a ludicrous thing to suggest that some abbreviation of that part of teacher training might be appropriate for ex-military folk. I think that other teachers, if they have anything about them would recognise whether a colleague, whatever their background and training, has those skills or not. So my point is that if someone has had the training and experience already, then don't put them through training again - just do a refresher version, of shorter length. It happens all over the place in other vocations and is generally understood and accepted I feel.

I think your point "Of course, if the skills are so transferable, it would work the other way around. Ex-teachers fast-tracked into officer positions, cut short a couple of years of training. But that won't be happening." is slightly irrelevant, as no one is proposing it - but nevertheless surely it's universal - if someone has a skills and experience in an area, then there's a case not to simply put them through the full training to get skills they already have. So if the Military were looking at taking in a whole bunch of ex-teachers, wouldn't it make sense to reduce the amount of time spent "training" them to prepare briefings say, and instead concentrate on areas where they will need "re-calibrating" - "don't tell Private Smith to go and see the headmaster, tell him he's an 'orrible little man and to get 'is 'air cut"

[Risso]

I think a career in anything before teaching is beneficial for anybody wanting to be a teacher, and is infinitely preferable to the A Levels-university-PGCE-teacher route that a lot of people follow.  My friend Gary was in the first Gulf War, and wanted to train to be a  teacher but couldn't get enough financial support, so now he works for Wigan council's antisocial behaviour unit.  He'd be a brilliant teacher, even if he is a gigantic leftie.

[bickster]

Tim Yeo coaches a witness to his own committees enquiry - link includes actual video of Yeo seemingly admitting the coaching that he denies

A Conservative MP has been accused of using his political position to help a private company influence Parliament in a newspaper sting.

Tim Yeo, who chairs the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, is alleged by The Sunday Times to have coached the managing director of a firm before the businessman appeared as a witness before his committee.

The company boss giving evidence was from GB Railfreight, owned by Eurotunnel which pays Mr Yeo, who publicly excused himself from asking questions during the committee hearing because of the conflict of interest.

Mr Yeo, who was due to appear on Sky News' Murnaghan programme before pulling out on Sunday morning, has "absolutely" denied any wrongdoing and has said he will contest the allegations.

The MP for South Suffolk and former environment minister has referred himself to the parliamentary standards commissioner.

Undercover reporters from The Sunday Times posed as representatives of a firm offering to hire Mr Yeo.

In footage released by paper, he appears to tell them that he had coached a representative of a firm that is a subsidiary of a company he is paid to work for, on what that representative should say when giving evidence to his committee.

He also appears to tell them that he was close to "really all the key players in the UK in government" and could introduce them to "almost everyone you needed to get hold of in this country".

The investigating journalists later withdrew their offer to work with him by email.

Mr Yeo wrote back saying that he was relieved because he had come to the view that the work was "not compatible" with his position as an MP and chairman of a select committee.

Sky's Darren McCaffrey said: "These are allegations that Tim Yeo denies, but against the backdrop of a lobby scandal ... it will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the public."

The claims come hot on the heels of another sting by the paper involving allegations against three peers.

Labour peers Lord Mackenzie and Lord Cunningham, and Ulster Unionist Lord Laird, have all denied offering to carry out parliamentary work in return for cash.

Last month, Conservative MP Patrick Mercer resigned the Tory whip because of allegations in The Daily Telegraph that he was taking money from lobbyists in order to ask questions on their behalf in Parliament.

He is alleged to have tabled Commons questions and offered a Westminster security pass after signing a deal with a lobbying firm that paid him £4,000 seeking the readmission of Fiji to the Commonwealth.

Wrong on a number of levels and the only people that don't see it are those as usual with their snouts in the trough

[peterms]

Well....on the fast tracking, I think there is a case for it. Here's why: If you take someone from Uni or college who wants to be a teacher, they will need to gain the knowledge of communication skills, of how to impart information, how to co-operate in drawing up planned lesson and structured presentation, how to succinctly get something across - and many other things which in my experience many, if not all, ex-military people will already have the knowledge and ability to do. So for me it's not a ludicrous thing to suggest that some abbreviation of that part of teacher training might be appropriate for ex-military folk. I think that other teachers, if they have anything about them would recognise whether a colleague, whatever their background and training, has those skills or not. So my point is that if someone has had the training and experience already, then don't put them through training again - just do a refresher version, of shorter length. It happens all over the place in other vocations and is generally understood and accepted I feel.

 

 

Those things are common to many jobs.  Equally, being employed in a job where these things or others are involved, doesn't mean you are very good at it.  All sorts of people in all sorts of jobs operate at a level where they get by, without being particularly good at one or several aspects of the role.  One of the very basic things about recruitment is that you don't assume that because someone was previously in a post with a particular job title or job description, they must necessarily have the competence you might assume is required for that, still less the level of competence you require in the role for which you are recruiting.  They may, they may not.

 

If the proposal was that anyone wanting to be a teacher could apply for exemption from part of the training because they can demonstrate they already have the knowledge or competence which that module was designed to impart, I would have no problem with it.  For example, a former military translator and a former commercial or academic translator without a degree in the subject would equally have a case to be exempted from some requirements, if they could demonstrate the necessary competence required of a language teacher.  Perfectly sensible.

 

But I think that's not what's happening.  As I understand it, the proposal is that for people leaving the military, and only for them, it will be assumed that they have certain knowledge and competences, simply by virtue of their past employment.  And that makes no sense.

[peterms]

Are you concerned about the government snooping on every aspect of your life and passing information secretly and illegally to other governments?

 

That's because you're GUILTY.  If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear.  Here it is, direct from the Ministry of Truth.

 

 

 

[blandy]

Well....on the fast tracking, I think there is a case for it. Here's why: If you take someone from Uni or college who wants to be a teacher, they will need to gain the knowledge of communication skills, of how to impart information, how to co-operate in drawing up planned lesson and structured presentation, how to succinctly get something across - and many other things which in my experience many, if not all, ex-military people will already have the knowledge and ability to do. So for me it's not a ludicrous thing to suggest that some abbreviation of that part of teacher training might be appropriate for ex-military folk. I think that other teachers, if they have anything about them would recognise whether a colleague, whatever their background and training, has those skills or not. So my point is that if someone has had the training and experience already, then don't put them through training again - just do a refresher version, of shorter length. It happens all over the place in other vocations and is generally understood and accepted I feel.

 

Those things are common to many jobs.  Equally, being employed in a job where these things or others are involved, doesn't mean you are very good at it.  All sorts of people in all sorts of jobs operate at a level where they get by, without being particularly good at one or several aspects of the role.  One of the very basic things about recruitment is that you don't assume that because someone was previously in a post with a particular job title or job description, they must necessarily have the competence you might assume is required for that, still less the level of competence you require in the role for which you are recruiting.  They may, they may not.

 

If the proposal was that anyone wanting to be a teacher could apply for exemption from part of the training because they can demonstrate they already have the knowledge or competence which that module was designed to impart, I would have no problem with it.  For example, a former military translator and a former commercial or academic translator without a degree in the subject would equally have a case to be exempted from some requirements, if they could demonstrate the necessary competence required of a language teacher.  Perfectly sensible.

 

But I think that's not what's happening.  As I understand it, the proposal is that for people leaving the military, and only for them, it will be assumed that they have certain knowledge and competences, simply by virtue of their past employment.  And that makes no sense.

If that last sentence is the case, then we share the same view. If it's not then we differ a little on some of the detail as to how it ought to work if it ever happens. I'd anticipate that some sort of assessment of prospective (ex-mil) teachers would have to take place prior to sending them on the fast track training scheme, to weed out those who are actually not skilled enough to miss the fuller training, but that for those who were deemed to have the skills, then fast tracking makes sense. And yes it could be expanded to other areas where people are likely to have the required transferrable skills.

But like I said, I don't think Gove has the awareness to actually come up with something credible. The tories mess up everything they try, because they're all of the view that their world view is infallible, that instinctively they are right and therefore consideration and appreciation of the various angles are not something they need to give any time to.

[AVFCforever1991]

 

Are you concerned about the government snooping on every aspect of your life and passing information secretly and illegally to other governments?

 

That's because you're GUILTY.  If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear.  Here it is, direct from the Ministry of Truth.

 

 

 

 

 "if you arent doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear"? Does this apply to the Bilderberg meetings as well?

[Xela]

Going back to the Help To Buy home ownership scheme. I happen to think it is an excellent scheme, having looked into it. Anything that gives people, especially a first time buyer, a helping hand in getting on the ladder is a good thing surely? I don't see why there is opposition to it? Mainly from people already on the ladder who almost seem to resent people getting help. Or it is just because this government have proposed it?

 

Property prices aren't coming down and lenders still aren't lending with confidence. Well done to the government for looking at ways to tackle this problem.

[bickster]

Going back to the Help To Buy home ownership scheme. I happen to think it is an excellent scheme, having looked into it. Anything that gives people, especially a first time buyer, a helping hand in getting on the ladder is a good thing surely? I don't see why there is opposition to it? Mainly from people already on the ladder who almost seem to resent people getting help. Or it is just because this government have proposed it?

 

Property prices aren't coming down and lenders still aren't lending with confidence. Well done to the government for looking at ways to tackle this problem.

Because… oh just read the responses above.

Sure it sounds great on a personal level right now but when property prices crash as they logically must at some time this measure will have caused even more inflation in a market that really doesn't need it. You need to look at the big picture and not on a personal level to see why its so wrong

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

Are you concerned about the government snooping on every aspect of your life and passing information secretly and illegally to other governments?

 

That's because you're GUILTY.  If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear.  Here it is, direct from the Ministry of Truth.

 

 

 

 

 "if you arent doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear"? Does this apply to the Bilderberg meetings as well?

 

Of course not, It only applies to plebs/debt slaves* not their masters/ credit owners*

 

 

* = delete as appropriate