My father went to one of the oldest English “public” (i.e. private) schools. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latymer_Upper_School He didn’t talk about the academics, which is surprising for an academic- he talked about the antisemitism he faced every single day from kids, teachers and staff. I’m sure it didn’t help that his parents were poor and he was there on scholarship.
I went to a private school in the U.S. for elementary school. I was bullied every day, not just by the kids, but by the only teacher I had from first through sixth grade, and he terrified me so much that my parents didn’t know until I was an adult and my mother ran into another kid I went to school with who talked about how sorry she felt for me.
My daughter goes to an American public school. She is bullied a lot too (we’re an eccentric family), but at least the teachers are mostly on her side, and if one isn’t, I have someone to complain to about it. I wouldn’t even think of risking her in a private school.
Your family is not eccentric. It’s exceptional. There is a big difference. Unfortunately people are afraid of that,that seems different to what they are accustomed. When they cannot do something the other can, they ridicule it. Being bullied feels like shit. Be there for your daughter and help her steam out all the feelings she has. Help her make alliances with other kids in the school. let her choose to do sports or art she likes. teachers may take her side, but don’t imagine that they’ll do something, no mater how much you complain. I hope my response has some meaning for you
I’m sorry you experienced that, but to be honest it’s entirely circumstancial. There are a lot of teachers in certain districts who normalize teasing students.
England is becoming an autocratic hellhole. The massive amount of poverty that has befallen the country leaves only room for more corruption.
And as you see, the common man has to step aside so that daddy Warbucks can abuse natural resources in “this green and pleasant land”… which it won’t be for long…
…it’s the fucking Tories. I know you’re being sarcastic, but still.
That labour is unelectable is because they need a reform to fit the new situation rather than believing they still live in 2001. But between the two? The Tories are the ones who threw England into the gutter. Undeniably.
Labour will blame the Tories, the Tories will blame immigrant workers, sectors will fall, people become poorer and the Tories slap a big ol’ “mission accomplished” banner up.
Eh, no. It’s the Tories and their stupid, corrupt plan.
It’s the “liberal market” gone wild (extra heavy quotations around “liberal”), via the trojan horse that was their brand of nationalistic, xenophobic protectionism, which tanked many businesses because they suffered massive brain drain and gave allowances to special friends of MP’s b’cus br’ih’ish, proving this horse called BREXIT was really just a way to avoid EU regulation, to gams UK economy by giving sharks and rat faced bastards the keys to the economy, which really just resulted in making every sector of industry in England alone a rechid hive of scum and villainy. No lie, throw a rock at any given UK market, and you just threw a rock into a shit tornado. The big idea? The OG intent? Usurp Switzerland as the new tax haven, to make London City great again - but instead, they just ground pounded British economy.
Like to underline the severity, I don’t think this is applicable everywhere, but England needs to decomodify a whole crapton of properties, because having blocks upon blocks standing empty for over decades due to “investors” sitting on it for its overpriced, projected liquidity, while homelessness is on the rise, is not a good look. We might see the return of hobbles and urchins in our lifetime. Crime will increase with poverty, and England itself might slowly turn into Victorian cyber dystopia when they finally have to “DEAL WITH THE CRIME RATES”. Can’t wait for that little smorgus board of human rights violations.
Additionally, judging by the various other "monarchies* in the world, including Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which are constitutional monarchies, they sure do cost a fair deal of money, but think of them more as the nations top soap opera. It’s basically state sanctioned idols, and unless they’ve got a lot of power, is as harmless as The Kardasian’s… who are just privatised royalty if you ask me.
That is to say, we have exceptions, like the Franco’s, the Philippino and Thai monarchies, the various African monarchies (tho not all? Not sure here), etc. But again, it’s not the hard and fast rule you think it is.
Here’s where my concern lies: if you get angry when you hear “monarchy”, ambivalent when you hear “aristocracy” and go “huh” like that meme cat when you hear “the clergy”, I think you might need to rethink your perception of governance and power structures.
In this case, the British people have to finally kill off their aristocracy and be aware that the Tories are literally enabling an oligarchy run by a bunch of pinheads and needledicks who think they can “save the kingdom”, if only you cut more taxes and threw out more immigrant labour… WHICH IS WHAT CAUSED THE FUCKING PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH!!!
Tories are trash, human garbage, and I don’t care who has to hear it.
To be fair, the monarch in the UK is mostly a figurehead. To his credit (and I am far from a monarchist), Charles has been advocating for environmental causes for a very long time. Sometimes stupidly, but he does actually give a shit. I just don’t know that he has the power to do anything about it and the Tories certainly don’t care.
I don’t think he can dictate laws, but he can unilaterally dissolve parliament and force an election (same as other commonwealth countries, the queen did that to Australia back in 1975). So if it’s a big enough issue, he technically could use that as a threat, though it would be a pretty nuclear option.
I don’t know that this particular event, as heinous as it may be, warrants such an action. That should be reserved for, for example, parliament trying to side with Putin on Ukraine.
Yeah, the 1975 incident was because the Tories allowed the government to shut down because they refused to pass a budget. The speaker kicked out the PM, appointed a temporary one, passed the budget, then dissolved parliament entirely. However, the mere threat can sometimes be enough.
I’m talking about Charles, not Elizabeth. Charles has famously worked for environmental causes for a very long time. He’s often an idiot about it and supports misguided causes, but he’s not in favor of this sort of pollution. He does have to pay fealty to Sunak’s government though. He’s not going to go against any of their major policy initiatives even if he doesn’t agree with them.
Also, that link doesn’t say anything about environmental laws as far as I can tell.
There are two ways to think about rights: there are legal rights and then there are human rights. Legal rights are conferred by some piece of legal document (legislation, constitution or common law) that a person is able to seek legal redress if their right has been revoked or diminished. Then there are human rights - what we as individual humans believe that each humans should expect as a basic right. The two are not always aligned, predominately because human rights vary greatly from one person’s interpretation to the next.
I think what the company is probably (accurately) arguing is that there is no legal right to swim in the UK, as no specific document states this with any specificity, so the complainant isn’t due compensation or redress of behaviour under the law. This is what the courts will examine as they are the interpreters of law but not the creators of law.
Now, does she have a human right to swim there free of sewage? I damn well think so, and I don’t think that would be a controversial opinion either. The problem is that what we think the law should be and what it is are often different, because legislation can’t represent every view simultaneously. There’s no law that could be drafted that makes forced birthers and pro choice people agree - someone will always lose out.
All of this is to say that while fighting this in court is a shitty thing to do (pun very much intended), it makes sense based upon the way our legal system is set up. There is no incentive for private business to respect rights that are not legally conferred, but there is a financial incentive to do the ‘cheaper and technically legal’ thing. Until we overhaul our legal systems to be inherently protective rather than inherently exploitative, this behaviour will continue.
There’s no legal document because nobody was dumb enough to think that in the first place. If you have to write a law for everything people are allowed to do because some twat wants to argue in bad faith, then the legal system has no basis in reality. In fact, if that were the case, then there is a chicken/egg problem with laws in the first place.
I think if anything this is more important.
Sure, HS2 is a complete shambles and an embarrassment and we should be criticising what's going on, but this is a calculated and deliberate attack on human rights, and is a significantly bigger red flag that I wish more people took seriously.
No it’s designed to gain support from ignorant bigots who have nothing better to do than think about other people’s genitals all the damn time, but are completely incapable of actual learning anything that isn’t shoveled down their throat by a far right psychopath who stands to gain from what they’re saying.
Clown fish start life as males, and become female in adulthood. Gobies can switch back and forth between male and female. So far, we know of maybe 500 species of fish that can change sex.
I understand people are not fish, but I'm not sure we should be so quick to declare something about people "can't be changed" with enough time, knowledge and science. Sex and gender are both complicated systems with lots of opportunity for unexpected variations affecting seemingly unrelated parts of a person.
It's even possible for your body to have more than one set of chromosomes, it's called Chromosomal Mosaicism and is detected in around 1-2% of pregnancies. Not all of those pregnancies make it full term, and not all mosaics are retained by the foetus, but in a world of billions of people it still ends up being a lot of people who are sexually diverse.
Biology is not simple. Do not underestimate the weird things your body can randomly surprise you with.
Most people generally assume we’re talking about current technological limits, unless otherwise stated, lest we end up with “yeah, everything is possible because DNA editing is possible”.
Even without technological intervention, we know some kinds of chemical exposure and cancers can alter chromosomes and literally change your X into a Y or vice versa. Or even turn it into a different shape than X or Y. Sometimes it a chromosome just goes missing entirely. Genetics are not always good at following the rules and they can break or perform strange new equations with mistaken values whenever a new cell is made. Organics are messy like that
Chromosomes delete, combine, duplicate, change and/or fuse bits of other chromosomes in unexpected places more than you might expect. It can happen to an embryo a few cells big right through a person's life.
Given the male sex is defined by the presence of any Y chromosome though (if we go by chromosome sex determination alone), if an arm breaks off the 46th chromosome after the embryo is established as XX, that XX foetus can develop as XY. Has it changed sex in the womb since it changed chromosomes? Are they female because they were conceived as XX, or male because they were born XY? It happens.
And if a foetus has Chromosome mosaicism, with both an XX and an XY embryo that fused into one foetus, it can be born with both sets of working genitals. Because they usually determine sex visually, they might only see the XY genitals and classify it as male. But the blood tests will sometimes show XX and sometimes XY, as much as 50% of the time if the fusion happened early. Which sex is that person in that case, and are they only 1 sex?
Are they still male becaude they have a Y if the first implanted embryo with XX chromosomes absorbed a smaller XY embryo, and therefore the final body is mostly XX?
And If a person with mosaicism as an adult surgically removes their XY-typical set/parts of their body including genitals, are they still XY? Even if the XY cells can be removed completely because they're only a small part of the person? Because that can happen too.
It only gets more complicated and uncertain from there, because there are a lot of variables at play when there's loads of organic data manipulation. But weird shit can and does happen for reasons we don't yet understand or know about. Depending on how you define sex and the point of sex determination, it is very likely someone has already changed sex.
I dare you to take HRT for a couple of years and then say that again (obviously not really, but you clearly don't give a shit about biology, which would prove you wrong, and are only here to spread ignorance in the name of transphobia)
If you just mean physical appearance then yes you can change your sex through hormones and surgery.
If you mean DNA then no, most AMAB will all have a X and a Y chromosome in every one of their cells which would technically make them male “sex”, despite whatever gender they identify as.
You can change your gender but you can’t really choose your biological sex. But it’s semantics really and not totally flushed out yet either.
The problem with private schools is that they have to sell themselves to the parents enrolling their children in it. You don’t sell yourself by putting down those important to your customers. Private schools are pressured to give an impression, not an education.
Paid for schools sell themselves to parents with their exam results more than anything else.
They may have a lot of equipment and resources that state schools don’t have, but it’s pretty irrelevant if they don’t have grades to back it up. Paid for schools I’m familiar with will often measure their results by what percentage of pupils are successful Oxbridge candidates, particularly if they’re studying classics.
The gimmicks such as laser cutters, 3d printers, green screens, recording studios, gym and sports facilities, personal laptops, art supplies etc etc. are pretty good for pupils who were never going to be accepted to a highest level university regardless of education. So you have selling points for higher and lower ability pupils.
inews.co.uk
Top