Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

On another issue entirely, but one sure to grab the attention- PORNOGRAPHY- in gratutise capitals to get people reading. Our delightful Tory led government is looking at legisalation to block all pornographic sites in the uk. If you want access to them you will have to register and prove you are over 18.
Is this the governmetns job though? Is not the job of parents to put appropriate blocking programs and the like on their pc's if children are going to be getting unsupervised access? There are ways to deal with the issue which do not involve legislation surely or a rather suspicous sounding regisration system.
Whether they like admitting it or not a lot of people watch porn, and it drives technology. VHS beat beta not because it was better, it was worse, but because the porn came out on it. Mobile phones success, in particular 3g and its successors is put down in no small fashion to people sending each other saucy texts and photos and watching porn on them (there was an excellent BBC documentray on this not long ago-the figures were quite suprising, but theres a lot of naughty folk out there staring at their phones! )
So can the govenrment legislate against this? Is it right to? What role has the parent in all this? Your thoughts folks.

[Eldorion]

How exactly do the Tories plan to use this registration system? Will they force all porn sites to hand over user data to the government and/or redirect traffic through government servers? Plenty of sites, including many non-pornographic ones, already require users to state that they are over a certain age, but I don't know how the Tories expect to enforce that. I'm deeply skeptical of this idea from an Internet freedom/privacy perspective, everything else aside.

[Pettytyrant101]

Exactly how its being done seems uncertain. The report said they were looking at blocking the sites rom entering the UK- which sounds a bit like the Chinese firewall.
Like you Eldo I have a serious issue here with freedoms. For the first time ever in history there is something where any human being can contribute (and even just by browsing pages you are contributing to traffic) and it reflects a true picture of us for once, good and bad. I don't like the idea of restrictions and I certainly don't trust a government with the information if there is a register. It cuould easily be the thin edge of the wedge too, if they pass this then whats next?
With regards pornography specifically humans have always had it, visual response to sex is very high in humans I think the task of stopping it is as foolish as King Canute commanding the tide not to come in. And as with drugs I feel these things are better legal and under proper scrutiny with legal protections for the partcipatants and representation as workers than without. Criminalising something never stops it, it just makes it a lot more dangerous and unscrupolous and puts it in the hand sof criminals.

[Pettytyrant101]

This is the original news story (loosely using the term news here as its from the Sun) short on detail of course;

RADICAL plans to ban internet porn from millions of homes were backed by ministers yesterday.
Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has warned internet service providers to act - or face tough new laws to tackle the problem.
Under the scheme to protect children from extreme images, hardcore sites would be automatically banned from ALL UK homes.
Anyone who wanted to access them would have to "opt in"


Seems reading it again they plan to lay the policing of it on the service providers- I am sure their lawyers are already gearing up as to why they can't or won't do it.

[Eldorion]

I have to question the motivation of "protect[ing] children from extreme images" too. I'm not saying that young children should look at porn, but when you're talking about children that young, I think they're unlikely to stumble upon hardcore porn sites anyway. If you're talking about older children (teenagers, essentially), then I don't buy into the idea that it is harmful for them to view porn. Furthermore, any issues potentially arising from teenagers viewing porn should be handled by their parents and/or other adults in their lives, not the government. This strikes me as just a cover for anti-porn moralizing from lawmakers.

[Pettytyrant101]

For me this is just a devious way of trying to get more and more government controls into the internet. For as long as there has been history governments have to one extent or another controlled information. Now thats all changed and they don't like it. Its starts with protecting the children from porn but where does it end? Banning sites for specific groups, like Muslims. Or banning foreign news channels to protect us from enemy propoganda (not so far fetched the US tried to bomb Al jazerra out of existence at one point to stop them reporting what was the truth). I just dont like censorship, people should have the choice what to view as adults and as adults they should have the responsibility of watching their children. Not the governments job.

[Eldorion]

I just dont like censorship, people should have the choice what to view as adults and as adults they should have the responsibility of watching their children. Not the governments job.

Agreed. I don't like laws about morality (obviously I do not include most crimes in this category) or that try to "nanny" people, for similar reasons to the ones you mentioned. They make me crabbit.

[Pettytyrant101]

I see New York has passed legislation allowing gay marriage- but with a few amendmentns to appease the Republicans- which basically boil down to the law doesn;t apply to religous groups who can continue to refuse to perform gay marriages or hold receptions etc for them without fear of the law. Apprently this protects America Religous Freedom laws.
On the otherhand however why should groups with an unprovable claim (and on the surface a highly implausable tale of an invisible super diety) be exempt from the law. Laws the rest of society has to adhere to?

[Eldorion]

On the otherhand however why should groups with an unprovable claim (and on the surface a highly implausable tale of an invisible super diety) be exempt from the law. Laws the rest of society has to adhere to?

Because giving them exemptions is the only way to secure enough support for marriage equality laws to pass.

On a somewhat less cynical note, I think that a lot of people (including some supporters of marriage equality) put an extremely high premium on the right of people to practice their religion freely and according to their own conscience even when it is discriminatory. For that matter, the right to practice ones religion can sometimes get people out of a lot of things in the U.S. Strongly held religious beliefs will tend to get teachers, bosses, and even government officials to bend or break the rules. Essentially, religion is just given a free pass on a lot of things, because it's seen as something very special and important by many (probably most) Americans.

Secular beliefs, however, tend not to get the same respect, no matter how strongly held. For examples, a lot of teachers I have had have made accommodations for students who skip many classes to participate in lengthy religious rituals, but I'm not going to get a free week off from class even if I felt very strongly that one shouldn't work in the week of Thanksgiving (or whenever).

[Pettytyrant101]

Even though the UK seems much more secular than the US we have some of the same problems still hanging about. The Church gets seats in the House of Lords, one of the 2 chambers in which laws in this country are made. There is no reason for it, they are not elected just there out of histroic precedent. And even whilst reform is being talked of (again) and an elected second chamber planned, it will only be partially elected and guess who is still gauranteed a seat? -yup religious representives. So why not seats reserved for leading scientists? Or leading engineeers? Why should the Church get power for nothing? At least the others, scientists, engineers, contribute something tangable and when they speak on their subject are talking about real things. A row of men in dresses whose only expertise is negotiating church politcs and claiming to beleive in something they refuse to prove do not seem like a useful group to be making laws.

[Orwell]

Porn --- let parent's supervise their children. Gov't's f%$k off!

Freedom --- unless your own personal freedom to do what your God or Politics inform you to do actively hurts or suppresses others.

Big Brother pee off (and you too, Religious Big Brother).

Freedom, of course, with responsibility. The caveat is, personal freedom, at times and in certain circumstances, might need to be squashed for the good of the commonality (and the safety of others oppressed by pricks of any size shape or colour)... Mmm... tricky business, this...

[Pettytyrant101]

The devils in the detail of course. As with many of these types of well meaning laws it only looks black and white, get up close it all smears out into shades of grey.

[Orwell]

This conversation reminds me that at heart I'm still an Anarchist after all these years. Respect for oneself while respecting others. Not your usual definition of Anarchism, but it's mine.

[Pettytyrant101]

That remnds me of Aleister Crowley who said "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the Law". He was condemend for this as an evil man who was saying any act was allowable, but thats because the press never quoted the other part of it which was, "Then what wilst thou do?"

[Orwell]

Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would hath them do unto you." Or something like that. He wasn't the first, nor the last. There's perfect Anarchism for you. So long as you're not a looney, of course, who has no regard for others or is paranoid. (Hey! There are caveats for everything). (At least, I think Jesus said it too --- I wasn't there, so can't be sure).

[Pettytyrant101]

"Do unto others as you would hath them do unto you." Unless your a sado-masochist.

[Orwell]

Caveats! Why can't it be simpler? I hate being an adult.... Thank goodness for places like Forumshire, where all earthly cares can be forgotten.... eegad... they can't...

[Gandalf's Beard]

PORN!!! YES!!!!

Tories F*** Off!!! Or in British: Piss Off!!!

I agree Petty, this is just a F****** Power Grab by Right Wingers to control access to the internet.

Also, there is a ton of Free Porn all over the internet, and Corporations HATE Free Stuff because they can't make a Profit off of Free Stuff. So this is a cynical ploy by the Right Wing that kills 2 birds with one stone: Regulated Access to the Internet, and Pay for Play Corporate Porn.


GB

[Pettytyrant101]

I hadn't considered the free stuff angle GB- but I supect you are right about that. As a firend of mine is fond of saying "If you pay for porn you aren't looking hard enough" Nothing annoys big business like people getting something there is a lot of demand for for nothing. And governments don't like it because there is not tax revenue from it. The protecting our children angle is just that, an angle, political trickery. Its the classic case of attack something no one is going to disagree with, in this case "Do you think young children should have access to pornography"_-almost everyone is going to say no to that. But its not really what its about (because they know full well the void will somehow be filled- when I was a teen hardcore porn was illegal- but we still bought it from under counters and out of bags at markets on vhs and the technological options are so great now-humans are very determined if we really want something), no this is about sneaking controls in through the backdoor and about money as you say GB. Power and cash- the two worst combinations for the making of law there is.

[Pettytyrant101]

Back to strikes. In particular the upcoming teachers strike in England and Wales. On the Andrew Marr show this morning the Education Secretary Michael Gove laid out his thoughts. He said schools should remain open, even if it meant parents coming in to keep them open, this was justified because teachers striking would inconvienence 'hard working parents forced to make child care arrangements at short notice" and because it would be a particular hardship on single parents. Now these seem like contradictory statements to me, how can parents going into school for the day to keep it open be any less inconvienent than having the make arrangements for the children that day? And the strike date has been known for long enough to make arrangements, this is not coming as a suprise to any parent with school age children so his use of 'short notice' is misleading.
He then went on to say that in other countires the job of teacher is much more respected. And that in the UK teachers have been slowly building that respect back up and that 'his fear' was that 'taking part in this sort of militancy' would damage societies respect for teachers. He asserted negotiations were ongoing and open but that the pension settlement had to be not just 'fair to teachers but fair to other taxpayers' (mmm, but shouldn't this respect for the job society is supposed to have not be reflected in the wage and pension? Why should anyone else respect the job if the government doesn't seem to?).
His new policy for education down south is to remove the modular parts from the GCSE and have just one exam at the end as used to be the case, and this will begin in September 2012. I'm not a teacher so don't know how this will be recieved, there was just the one main exam you sat when I was at school, no modular parts at all, closest to it was in Higher Art where you built up a portfolio of work that was sent to the exam board at the end of the year. Whats your view on this Kafria? Whats the word in the staffroom?
I wonder how teachers react to Grove? He strikes me as having the mannerisms of a poor teacher, oddly enough given his job. I feel like I am being talked down to all the time and it's not even my profession.

Quote of the interview- Grove- "The reason we say to teachers don't go on strike is because we are treating them as professionals."

Best summing up- Andrew Marr- "So you are saying to new teachers, 'we are making it harder to become a teacher, you'll have to work longer hours, for longer for a smaller pension, your pay isn't going to go up and don't go on strike."

[Eldorion]

His new policy for education down south is to remove the modular parts from the GCSE and have just one exam at the end as used to be the case, and this will begin in September 2012.

Am I reading that right? He wants a single test for secondary school students covering all of the topics they're supposed to have learned? Not even the U.S. does that, despite all of the other chronic problems in our education system (largely related to funding issues).

As for the strikes, I think the quote you posted from Andrew Marr sums it up nicely, based on what little I know of the situation.

[Pettytyrant101]

All the topics within a subject yes. So if its English say then you sit a single exam which tests all your knowledge of english. At the moment students do course work (at least here, there are diffrences in England so will need Kafria to correct me where it differs) and the course work is graded and done throughout the year and contributes towards the final grade. There is still an exam at the end but its not the be all and end all as the course work gets taken into account.
From what I can tell this will be changing to there being just a single exam per subject rather than it being broken down into smaller bits throughout the year.

[Eldorion]

I thought that he meant one test covering every subject in all fields. This isn't as bad, but it still sounds like a bad idea. I'm pretty sure that schools here also count classwork performed over the course of the semester towards the final grade, not just a final exam.

[Kafria]

Okay, where to start? Exams and coursework I think.

Once upon a time in merry old england students studied hard for two years and then took one or two final exams from which they got their grade. It was often cried "but some don't perform in the tests, poor dears, due to stress" and so coursework components were added. As governments switched their political goals to 'education, education, education' the call to drie up standards was heard. Exam boards competed for schools to use their syllabus (and buy their textbook, notebook, teacher guide, technician guide and revision guide) so modular exams were born. Four exams on four topics, a quarter to learn at once, and low and behold, grades went up. And for those still struggling, never fear. Retake modules as often as you want in that 2 years. And standards rise once more. The media with cynical voice looked upon these results and cried ' how can it be that all these kids are getting smarter than us' and yelled 'foul play'. So once again, for political gain, the system shall be changed, final exams and no coursework - Now controlled assessment will take it's place.

Right, sorry, to get on point, we currently do 33% coursework and four modular exams, makes life easier to be sure, you can target retakes and ensure coursework is high enough to make sure kids get the grades they are targetted (We were told a few years ago be a senior member of staff ' there is no excuse for a child to get less than target in the coursework!') New system still has modules and module exams (Grove being slightly disingenous again!) but at least 40% of the course has to be taken in the last session. Controlled assessment is basically coursework, you do the prep in class, then get a set period to write it under exam conditions - no rewrites after staff have looked it over. Some resists are still allowed,but if it counts as you 40% you have to take that mark (not your highest mark - the current practice). This change has been coming since before the election (I think! - coursework certainly went out under the old government for a lot of the other subjects). What will happen? Results will fall, exam boards will panic and shift the distribution curve again! (Don't believe me - raw scores are converted to points and it is points total that is counted for grades. The raw mark needed on the triple science paper to get an A grade on the mock my class just took was 19 out of 42, I kid you not! I have seen it as low as 17. The see how the kids do and stick a distribution curve in, then assign points!

To be honest it is populist policy from someone who as far as I know hasn't worked in schools. 'The exams are getting easier, lets make it harder'. Negates how hard these top end students work, the extras they do and the great people they are turning into!

And it is the same with all his comments

'public sector workers have it easy, they should pay more and get less for their pension'

'teachers shouldn't strike!' so he writes to all the head teachers in the country telling them should try and keep their school open to be professional, cos all heads really want to do is find an excuse for a day off!

If he genuinely thinks teachers should be a more highly regarded profession he ought to start treating us like professionals!! not belittling and berating us in public with populist policies!!! (You're not the only one who feels talked down too!)

His comments though are fairly indicitive of how the majority of society seem to view us as a profession!

Arrrrggghhhhh!
Crabbit now!!!!

[Pettytyrant101]

Sorry Kafria! Have a sip of buckie take the edge of the crabbit. But thanks for the added info it was very interestng, especially about the points system. I had no knowledge of it at all. I have no idea how it works in comparison on Scottish education. The main focus here in recent times seems to have been on the introduction of a new curriculum, and even then the problem seemed to be teachers complaining there was too little time to prep and set in in motion.
As to Grove, all I could think while watching him was if this is how I feel about him now thank Illuvatar I'm not a teacher becasue I would be throwing things at the TV by then.
The decision on what you will do Karia regarding strikes is of course yours to take. I hope however the teachers strike and strike hard and that the rest of the public sector comes out and backs them.
Unfortuntely one of the factors against you is a weak Labour Party who is struggling to distance itself from the Unions and strikes in the popular media whilst trying to pay lip service to the Unions to keep their party funding. Milliband must have piles by now from that fence he's been sitting on. I fear you will find no help there. This is isnt yet a Minas Tirith style hopeless last stand, but its getting close to a Helm's Deep in this country, and not before time.

ps if its any consolation Kafria I more than suspect a teachers lot is often a harsh and frustating one, and neither the pay and conditions nor the attitude of the press is anything like a fair reflection of the long term contribution to society you help make. I salute you for taking on the responsibility of educating our young. (really I mean it).