UKC

... that her big idea for curbing immigration - doing the job her department was supposed to do - was to get the Education dept to put their children to the bottom of the queue for schools. Nice. Yes; let's discourage immigration by punishing children.

She is a shallow, none-too-bright vindictive little Englander who only survives being ritually slaughtered each week at PMQ by being opposed by someone even more shallow and predictable.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Or we might simply observe that one of the proposals considered by her or her department was the aforementioned disincentivisation scheme, which was not adopted.

Politics often involves manufacturing a rift (eg Education vs Migation policy) in order to absolve a department from blame or to secure the passing of a difficult but less controversial proposal. The Home Office has to "talk tough" when placed in primary control of Cameron's stupid immigration targets. If they are then thwarted by other departments, where does the blame fall? Perhaps other, more treasured, plans were introduced by way of a trade?

She's no greater debater, I agree, but I doubt anyone looks smart calling TM "none too bright".

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Can't say I agree. Go back and watch the one about grammar schools. Corbyn routinely makes her look incompetent, and given the tories' view of Corbyn, doesn't say much about May.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Whatever else you can say about her, not bright isn't one of them. Getting to Oxford from comprehensive school is not the mark of a fool.

So taking a step back, what is the answer to the immigration 'crisis' the country just voted to take us out of Europe for ? As far as I can see, this sort shitty policy is exactly what we appear to want.

In reply to GrahamD:

I fear you are at risk of overstatement.

In reply to GrahamD:


My understanding was that she went to a grammar, not a comp - hence why she feels they are a good thing.

As for bright / not bright - I would guess she is of the "hard work and determination" school of achievement, rather than the "sparky natural intelligence / imagination" one, but as I say above that is a guess.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Which of these characters is preferred for a current PM to negotiate this country through the next few years?
Not sure which is safer or better in the long run, let's face it, half the country will disagree with every decision made.

In reply to andyfallsoff:



Seems to me like she's from the shit loads of intelligence but not an ounce of common sense school. Loads of them about.

Wally

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Playing devils advocate for a second, why should an immigrant child be at the front of the queue for a school place? Would that be the best policy in your mind? Can you see an issue arising from displaced local children if this policy was adopted? Just stating that this means she is a vindictive little Englander seems a extreme.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

ONS figures just released. Net migration to the UK in the year till June 2016 was 650k

Much frothing at the mouth happening on social media right now. Have a look at AF Neil's twitter feed for example

In reply to andyfallsoff:

She won a place at a grammar school which became comprehensive when she was there, I think, so she won a place at Oxford from a comprehensive school.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The response to this should be to address the need for 'displacing' children at all rather than to victimise certain children through no fault of their own in order to appease a braying mob.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
How about just treated like any other child rather than being either at the front or back of the queue? It's hardly the child's fault and it is in everyone's interest they are educated. There are obvious resource problems with illegal immigrants, particularly when they are poorly accounted for, but schooling is possibly the worst point at which to try and solve these problem.

In reply to MG:


Which accounts for the policy being sensibly rejected. It's important however to discuss all the options before reaching a conclusion, wouldn't you agree?

In reply to BnB:

Yes. Although given its obvious problems it is concerning it was apparently taken seriously. It does suggest political pandering

In reply to GrahamD:


Probably why the OP referred to her as an "vindictive little Englander", no longer able to able to use the "Eton toff" form of personal abuse.

In reply to MG:


It does. And the dislike isn't from me. But that's what politics has become (if it was ever anything else), a reflection of public mood.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


You were going ever so well and then .................

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Let me just correct that for you....
let's discourage ILLEGAL immigration

In reply to Indy:

Does that change matters? Should we discourage other crime in the same way?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

She is the face of a morally bankrupt and incompetent Westminster government that isn't leading the country but simply flinging red meat to the London based right wing media and the mob mentality that they help to generate.

In reply to Indy:






By punishing children.............yep. That's cleared that up.

In reply to toad:

Your point is caller?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

My understanding was that it was illegal immigrant, not legal immigrants that were put to the bottom of the list. I don't have any issues with that, if you are going to move to a country, you need to acknowledge it's laws.

In reply to MG:


So if I walked into a bank with a sawn off shotgun and robbed it of an amount of money equal to next terms school fees you'd be ok with that?

Don't we have a proceeds of crimes Act?

In reply to alastairmac:

Nice random cliche generator you have there.

But is this the same media that did its best to undermine the last leader of the same government, and suceeded ? The government is actually leading the country between a rock and a hard place (the electorate, left and right just had a big say on immigration) and the majority of them know Brexit is really a shit idea. So basically they are doing what the Great British public apparently want.

In reply to Indy:

Yep, absolutely. Oh, hang on, actually, no, WTF are you talking about?

In reply to Indy:

That you don't discriminate against kids based on the actions of their parents. But you knew that, didn't you?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

As others have said, neat lack of the word "illegal" in your post... this was proposed as a measure to curb "ILLEGAL" immigrants.

At least get your facts correct, unless you want to be guilty of spouting misleading nonsense....

In reply to toad:

But the kids and their parents are discriminating against the rest of us.

And I don't think your comment would hold up to scrunity, kids will always be discriminated because of their parents.

In reply to toad:


So all you need do is 'launder' children through the equation and nothing is now illegal?

In reply to jonnie3430:


Probably, but we can disapprove of it, rather than making it government policy.

In reply to Indy:


If you can't work that out, you shouldn't be commenting.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

What I don't get, is that if the school can figure out that someone is an illegal immigrant, then why can't the home office?

In reply to jonnie3430:

Surely the home office did know they were illegal immigrants, otherwise how could they know which kids to put at the back of the queue for school places?

In reply to The New NickB:

I think he is just announcing that his next parking ticket is coming out of his kids pocket money, and don't piss him off because your family is fair game.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Why don't they do something about it then? Either register then as asylum seekers, help them become legal immigrants or send them home? My understanding, that may be wildly out, is that illegal immigrants wouldn't be able to get national insurance numbers, driving licences, bank accounts, etc., meaning that they live in a world of cash payments, no contracts for work, so no protection, no gp, no car, cash paid for accommodation, so no protection from landlords? It's not right.

In reply to Indy:


No, what it (obviously) means is you don't punish children for parents' behaviour.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Wow... So, having failed schools and created a situation where many teachers are leaving the profession due to poor working conditions, May proposes to counter these problems, exacerbated by Tory austerity and the privatisation-scheme known as 'academisation', with a white supremacist policy that would make schools (even more) an extension of border control and legally sanction new forms of racial and class-based school segregation.... And, the only thing people can say (after pedantically fawning over May's "intelligence", supposedly proven by her admission to an elitist - and extremely white - university) is: "but these children are illegal!" Wow... wow...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think you will find that she/they were talking about putting ILLEGAL immigrants children to the back of the queue.
Now if these are indeed ILLEGAL immigrants then they would (or at least should) be sent back from whence they came.

So why do you think that both indigenous children, and children of legal immigrants should be prevented from going to school (or at least being sent to one miles away) because of someone who is about to be chucked out of the country.

In reply to C Witter:
Posts like that make May's consideration of this policy sound sane and balanced.

Edit: Incidentally, Oxford has about 20% non-white students, higher than the general population
https://public.tableau.com/views/UoO_UG_Admissions2/EthnicityandDisability?...

In reply to jonnie3430:


That's what I don't get either. Who is classed as an illegal immigrant? If they are applying for school places, surely they must be in the system and would not necessarily be an illegal immigrant classified and being processed (either to stay or leave).

In reply to fred99:


Wouldn't that be the job of the Home Office, May's former domain...?

In reply to MG:

Perversely it illustrates the benefit of a cabinet style of govt. You have a bad idea thrown out for discussion by one of the Departments and then it is thrown out by the others.

In any working day there will be halfbaked ideas or policy proposals put out by any number of govt Departments which are then firmly rejected.

Some will hit the headines, I suspect that 99% do not.

That is how it should be.

In reply to MG:
You've not read the stats properly. Summary states that approx. 13% BME admissions, when average is higher at Russell Group (18%) and nationally 22%. So, Oxford recruits almost 9% less BME students than national average. And that's in 2015, after years of criticism. It is also interesting that, if you look at the table, acceptance rates are 25% for white students compared to 16% for BME - meaning, Oxford accepts 9% less of the BME students that apply. Of course, there are complicating factors here, e.g. which courses students are applying for, and inequalities at earlier stages of schooling - but, it's still a striking figure. Particularly if you think about how ethnicity intersects with class.

Meanwhile, London universities with high BME and OS student populations have been viciously attacked by Theresa May as Home Secretary, under the utterly dubious guise of "preventing terrorism", with London Met (a crucial university for BME students) being banned from recruiting OS students. This has had multiple, terrible effects on UK HE... you can read more about it in your own time, as plenty of students and lecturers have written extensively about it. But, in short, HE is being made an extension of border control, student/staff relationships and freedom of education are badly effected, and students numbers are down across the board... Another stupid Tory idea to cut immigration: stop students from "coming over here, paying upwards of £15,000 a year for an education", even though, especially after all the cuts to HE in the last decade, these students - often on cheap-to-teach courses like management - are subsidising the whole, floundering UK HE economy..."

And this is all besides my main point... that anyone who thinks it is a positive thing to institute school segregation on the basis of children's citizenship status is a vicious b@stard.

And if you think how that intersects with class, (e.g. because children get shunted down the list, they go to the special measures school that caters to working-class children, rather than the spanky middle-class academy, catering to the better neighbourhoods), you'll see how it's about more than migration: typical Tories, attacking those at the bottom of the pile.

In reply to jonnie3430:

I've seen first hand the result of this 'discrimination'. Just one example: an 11 year old boy locking himself in the disabled toilet every day at break so as not to get the crap beaten out of him. The utterly terrified look on his face - like nothing I have ever seen - when I discovered what was going on, and said I was going to something about it. Me, horrifed to realise there was nothing I could do to protect this little boy, partly because of the many adults in the community who could give f*** because he was a 'dirty, little paki' (he was, in fact from Eastern Europe, but hey, anything less than a lilly-white pallor will do).

"kids will always be discriminated because of their parents."

You are talking about CHILDREN - whoever they are, wherever they are from, they need protecting, valuing and nurturing (and this is from someone who definitely does not want any of her own, l like giving them back at the end of the day), and that is society's responsibility not just the parents.

Have you ever been disciminated against? Felt the pain of rejection by your peers? The fear of physical harm, which could strike at any time? A sense of not belonging to where you live? Helplessness because there is no one to turn to and no one who can make you safe? I hope not. I imagine not, because otherwise, I would wonder that you could so casually brush off discrimination, indeed the abuse, of children.

A lot of the empathy fails I encounter on here could be resolved by a little voluntary work and a bit of empathetic imagination.

In reply to jonnie3430:


No, it's not. But they're here, they're productive, they're settled, many for at least a generation living in the shadows with all the attendant issues that brings. Perhaps there's a better solution than hunting them down and kicking them out?
jk

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Hear hear. The three phantom dislikers on your post should have a long think about why they see fit to disapprove of a post which does nothing more than call for empathy towards innocent children.

In reply to C Witter:

Ok, I misread that but it still almost tallies with the general population. Oxford recruits many fewer overseas students than other Russel group universities so.you would expect a lower non-white proportion. The idea it is biased by skin colour is odd, to say the least.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

No child should have to queue to get into a school.
That's an example of a "British value".
At least it used to be.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I think empathy is one of those abilities that is learned through modeling and experience. I suspect those who find it difficult to empathise have probably experienced very little empathy towards themselves. I wish they would feel able to discuss why we should choose not to protect children.

PS I also gather there are some people who are of the opinion that I am a bit of a virtue signaller. Whatever. I am the Titanium Alloy Snowflake.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


So leave them and their parents in the shadows?


I'd be very surprised if anyone hasn't felt everything you listed above. If they haven't, they've lived a very lucky life. I whole heartedly support bringing everyone in this country into one society, if a step towards that is by identifying illegal immigrants through schools then I'd support that too. It does seem a pathetic response to identify an illegal immigrant and not do anything about it other than prioritise other children other than theirs.


A lot of the empathy fails I encounter on here could be resolved by reading carefully with an open mind and not jumping to conclusions.

In reply to jkarran:


How can they be settled without a national insurance number? Or a driving licence? I listed a couple of alternatives to kicking them out too. Our society fails if people don't take their responsibilities seriously, which is integrating into our society (and all that comes with it,) those that wish to move here, and those that have moved here integrating into it.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


I thought the idea was that illegal immigrant parents wouldn't have priority over all the other parents who don't get their preferred choice of school, rather than children not getting into a school at all.

In reply to jonnie3430:

"Leave them in the shadows"

I never said or implied that. I was using an example (I sadly have several more) of the frightening, pernicious impact of discrimination and anti-immigrant feeling on innocent and vulnerable children. As well as my own sense of helplessness at there being no professionals or community to turn to for help and protection. The problem is precisely that these people are forced into the shadows.

"I'd be very surprised.. "

So would I, to discover that one or two or even more of those things had happened a few times in people's lives. I am talking about fear, intimidation and exclusion as a way of life. As what you live every single day without relief. About being disliked, hated even, for something you can't change - who you are. Jesus, becoming a teenager has enough identity baggage as it is.

"Empathy fails"

A dislike doesn't offer much information. My inference was based on an informal heuristic analysis of general themes in UKC discussions.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


I repeat, no child should have to queue to get into a school. How poor are we for X's sake?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Here's May's problem as Home Secretary. She is asked to meet unattainable targets on immigration. To attempt to meet these targets she goes for the "low hanging fruit" of people who have marginally overstayed or made an administrative error etc. This is grossly unfair whilst well over over half a million illegal immigrants are getting off scot free and are by definition very hard to identify. So, she explores all sorts of radical ways of identifying these people and removing them.

Quite rightly this idea got knocked back, and I do fear that May actually thinks we should aim for "tens of thousands" of immigrants a year. But it is surely quite right that the government focuses on illegal immigrants, not least in fairness to legal immigrants.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

I agree, any person who can get a kid into our country, by whatever means, should see that as a guarantee of free education from kindergarten to a place at Oxford Uni!

Obviously we'd have to accommodate the parents, so they can look after the kid.

And they'd need healthcare of course.

Somewhere to live....

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's a thankless job being a PM.
At the sharp end of everything.
Millions of Bar-Room and armchair PMs out there will sagely pronounce you a shit.

In reply to birdie num num:

She wasn't PM when she was pushing this mean, nasty and unworkable policy.

And she volunteered to be PM, nobody made her apply for the job.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
What makes me laugh about the spin on this story is that it seems like our country allows free schooling for illegal immigrants without penalty. Someone proposed a penalty, it was declined by May and she gets a kicking in the press!

It's all very British, how liberal are we!?!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I was speaking generally rather than specifically. And without any ideological allegiance.
Your post must be retrospective then.

In reply to GrahamD:


She didn't go to a comp. She was privately educated at a fee paying grammar school.

In reply to Big Ger:

You should still educate the student. Even the US does that.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Can you elaborate on that? My impression was that she got a State scholarship to a State grammar school.

In reply to Big Ger:

For Gods sake




For God's sake we need to get some humanity into this country. Go down the supermarket and watch them stocking up on the Christmas biscuits. We're not so poor we can't afford to look after a few thousand refugees. What the hell has happened to this country I loved?

In reply to Pete Pozman:


A "few thousand"?

Ok, who and when do we say; "sorry that's it, we've taken a few thousand, no more mate" to?

There are 3 million kids under 14 yrs old in Somalia, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

There are 8 million kids under 14 yrs old in Syria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

There are 40 million kids under 14 yrs old in Nigeria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

Or are you saying we should only allow in those with the money and ability to make it to the UK?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Drink some water, ...go to bed.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


It was illegal immigrants as I understand it, people who had no right to be here in the first place. Legal immigrants have every right to expect fair treatment.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'She initially attended Heythrop Primary School, a state school in Heythrop, followed by St. Juliana's Convent School for Girls, a Roman Catholic independent school in Begbroke, which closed in 1984.
At the age of 13, May won a place at the former Holton Park Girls' Grammar School, a state school in Wheatley. During her time as a pupil, the Oxfordshire education system was reorganised and the school became the new Wheatley Park Comprehensive School.'

Not your average comp I wouldn't have thought, particularly in the early years. But that's hardly the point.

In reply to Jim C:

All children, whether they are the children of sex offenders, axe murderers, legal AND illegal immigrants - even the spawn of Nigel Farage - have a right to be treated fairly.

In reply to Big Ger:

OK let's extrapolate TM's Big Idea. There's all these people who really want to come to the UK for a variety of reasons, none of them valid obviously, because all they want to do is leave their friends, family, homeland and culture and come to a damp cold foggy isle where they will be strangers but be able to live the life of riley on our extraordinarily generous benefits system - £36 per week. OK, got it.

So to discourage that we are going to punish their children by discouraging them/not allowing them to go to school. Got that too. I'm not sure what the children will think, but yes that could be a way of discouraging parents. 'Come here and your children will be excluded from any education whatsoever while the Home Office wheels grind slowly to deport you.' (The fact that the countries that they will eventually be returned to will be further impoverished by returning schoolchildren who have missed vital stages in their education and therefore encourage MORE migration in the future is more of a long term problem, so can safely be ignored.)

But why stop there? Why not do what the Belgians did in the Congo - why not chop the children's hands off to discourage the parents? (OK in the Congo it was to 'encourage' the parents, but it's the same principle.) That will really send a message that illegal immigrants aren't welcome. Sorted.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


It was comprehensive when she qualified for Oxford. I know someone working their way up through the normal education system doesn't play well with your Tory stereotype but that is what it is - just like the majority of MPs from all parties.

In reply to birdie num num:


Good advice, thanks.
And for the first time in 6 months it was nice to wake up to a morsel of good news.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Just wow. Not to the front of the queue for school places (and Pete Pozman, we *all* have to queue for school places, plenty of people put their kids on lists the day they're born) and cutting off children's hands are similar in your crazy world.

Do always love the classic Britain's crap line as well. What an awful damp land we live in, anyone coming here *must* be seriously put upon, otherwise why would they force themselves to be subjected to the hell that is Britain?! Oh, wait, that's a load of crap isn't it, we live in a really nice country where those who can't look after themselves are looked after by the state.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Just a modest proposal.

In reply to thomasadixon:

I know about the queueing and the crap around school admissions. It won't do for anybody. All children should have access to a good education. People shouldn't be thinking in terms of us and them. The divisiveness which is sweeping away our humane values is spoiling Britain.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

It's a basic practicality of life. Schools are only so big. Carry on waffling about values though (as if having to take your turn in the queue isn't a British value!).

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Who said that they wouldn't be allowed to go to school?

The suggestion seems to be that they wouldn't be first in the queue when it comes to choosing schools.

In reply to timjones:
No, I believe that you are incorrect. According to the Beeb, 'the Home Office wanted the children of illegal immigrants to go to the bottom of the list for school places.'

It's not as though they were discouraging sharp-elbowed middle class parents from wherever muscling to the top of the queue, it was about excluding them, and it would be mealy-mouthed and delusional to think otherwise.

Which fortunately few of May's cabinet colleagues did.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




How many children in the UK don't get a school place?

I think you're letting your vindictiveness cloud your judgement.

In reply to timjones:

'How many children in the UK don't get a school place?' None at the moment, as far as I am aware; I don't really understand your point. The proposal was to make it more awkward for the children of illegal immigrants to get places than would otherwise be the case, as a specific and explicit measure to curb immigration.

I particularly didn't like the proposal because a) it was simply unworkable (how would a school know that the parents applying for a place were illegal - ask them? Demand papers that could easily be forged? Look them up on a HO database?) and b) It didn't appear to consider that the collateral damage, e.g. children crucially missing the start of term, particularly important in the case of immigrant children who might well have special language or care needs was important or their problem.

I don't think it was me that was being vindictive at all.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



And you accuse Theresa May of not being too bright

My point is that unless you know otherwise every child gets a school place on day one of their first term. Queues are only relevant if you are the sort of parent that wants to pick and choose which school they go to.

If it's not vindictiveness that causes you to leap to conclusions what else is it?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395

Presumably this is the article you're going from, which is pretty vague about what the actual policy was. It does use the term deprioritize over and over though, and if you take that at it's normal meaning then what it means is that they're no longer at the top of the list, they're no longer priority above the rest of us. Anyone know any more actual detail?

"The overall effect of a deprioritisation measure would be to concentrate children of illegal migrants in the least popular schools in any area, jeopardising our increasingly important focus on tackling both segregation and extremism, and with consequent impacts on the children of British nationals who attend the schools. Aside from the impact on ordinary parents, there is also a risk to children's safety."

So the kids would still go to school, they just wouldn't get their parents' school of choice. Also, apparently these illegal migrant children are a risk to safety and they have a negative impact on British children too! I'm sure that's not true really, very racist of the speaker to even suggest such things.

Overall, it's pretty obvious that stating that controlling illegal immigration is the job of the border force is never going to actually work. If illegal migrants can go to school, work, get medical care, etc without any checks then the border force will never know they are there, and can never enforce the law. It's only by having our government systems working together that there's a real ability to know who is in the country and to act to remove those illegally here. Many (like you) seem to think that all migration should be legal and so obviously any moves to remove illegal migrants are wrong, although you're not honest enough to admit it. For the rest of us there clearly need to be improvements to the system for it to work. Illegal immigrants should be removed, and before that can happen they need to be identified.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Was your profile hacked when you wrote the OP then?

It seems to me that instead of heeding the sensible advice throughout this thread that politics and policy are not necessarily aligned, that citizens need to feel protected by the state or anarchy will ensue, you've chosen to dig an ever deeper hole for yourself. For goodness sake show some common sense and understand that your OP wasn't the bullseye you imagined it to be.

In reply to thomasadixon:

'Many (like you) seem to think that all migration should be legal and so obviously any moves to remove illegal migrants are wrong, although you're not honest enough to admit it. '

Where on earth have I ever said that? And I don't even think Corbyn - or anyone else - would go that far.

I don't believe that any developed country can accommodate unlimited immigration, that would be a stupid position to take. (Free movement within the EU is a rather different kettle of fish, however...) Yes, there have to be limits to how many Mexicans can settle in the US, how many Moroccans can settle in France, etc. And yes, because of those limits there will be those who try to enter illegally and who need to be identified and deported. Fine. Just don't try and use their children's education as a lever or weapon.

In reply to BnB:

'Was your profile hacked when you wrote the OP then?'

Er no. 45 likes would indicate that it wasn't as outrageous as you are implying either.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



I'm far more impressed by the support you've flushed out for a currently unpopular PM by failing to think the issue through before posting your hasty invective. It has been an interesting thread however so I'm glad you raised the story.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



You appear to be against all attempts to do anything to control it. Apologies if I'm wrong, but your comments above about how hard it would be to identify those who are illegal immigrants seem to say that we shouldn't try. IIRC you said similar re attempts to have the NHS identify who is using it, and the same about landlords being required to identify those renting from them. If you block all attempts to control illegal immigration while proposing no alternatives then you might as well be in favour of it.


As before, what does "deprioritize" mean? If it means they shouldn't jump the queue then it's hardly using their children's education as a weapon, it's just treating them like everyone else - and if they're illegal they should be identified and deported, so their children should get no education from us at all.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>
It looks like a "bog standard" State grammar school to which she won a State scholarship. I cannot find any evidence that it was either independent or fee paying. Can you? Maybe it was.
Some former grammar schools became fee paying independent fee paying schools. Others became comprehensives.
This appears to have become the latter and the transition to have happened whilst she was there.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Well I think we're almost in agreement. Yes illegal immigrants and their families should be deported at the earliest opportunity, I'm just not sure that schools, hospitals and employers are the right people to identify them. I think you'll find that employees at those institutions have full time responsibilities already, without becoming illegal immigrant detectives.

I objected to the original proposal because a) it was a reiteration of Theresa May's consistent attitude to ALL immigration - there's far too much of it, whether from the EU or anywhere else - and b) even if it was morally acceptable it was unworkable for perfectly practical purposes.

I spend quite a lot of time looking at DWP and HMRC 'rules', NHS governance and so on, and the stream of unworkable cr*p descending from on high that really hasn't been thought through beggars the imagination. Seems like a cabinet minister only has to sneeze in the middle of the night for 1000 civil servants try and implement that as policy.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you are fixating on something that isn't very important. How unlike you!

I'm not underestimating her achievement getting to Oxbridge, but equally I bet that if the local grammar-later-to-become-comp had had a dodgy reputation she would have gone elsewhere.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



I like things to be correct particularly when they reflect silly leftie prejudices (not you, by the way)

On the main topic: do you accept that a primary role of government is to protect the interests of the existing population and of legal migrants? If so, do you accept that it is therefore important that the government stop illegal immigration, which hurts the interests of the groups above?

If so, do you not understand that, because by definition illegal immigrants are difficult to identify, it has to explore unorthodox and sometimes imperfect ways of doing this?

In reply to Postmanpat:

That might be true but isn't what the OP is about. The proposal was about changing the way children of illegal immigrants are educated. For this to happen, the parents must already have been identified as illegal immigrants. I would say while they remain in the UK, such children should have the same opportunities to be educated by the state as any other child. In the same children of other criminals aren't put at the bottom of heap by policy for the sins of their parents.

In reply to Postmanpat:

More broadly the Trumpian idea that you can simply deport many thousands of people who are here illegally is simplistic nonsense and attempting it a ridiculous use of resources. If conditions elsewhere are sufficiently bad, people will leave and arrive legally or illegally elsewhere. Either we let them die in the streets or we adopt sensible policies (like educating their children) to make the best we can of the situation. Reducing such immigration requires conditions in other countries are stable and reasonably prosperous, which isn't easy to achieve, of course.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Illegal immigrants are not at the top of the queue for school places today and this is not an initiative to "treat them like everyone else". If that was the case it would have no value in controlling immigration. "Deprioritise" is obviously government-speak for kicking to the back of the queue.

In reply to MG:

Thank you. I was beginning to lose the will to live.

In reply to MG:

>
No, according to the BBC article, and discussion on R4, the idea was that schools would help identify illegal immigrants:
"Her department suggested schools could withdraw places offered to children if their families were found to be living in the country illegally.
The Home Office also wanted schools to carry out immigration checks."

This was one of the many objections to the policy.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Right so that bit is nothing to do with finding illegal immigrants. *If* they were found to be illegal *then* a place would be withdrawn.


A separate aspect of the proposal, as shown by the word "also.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Perhaps! Who is going to identify them if not schools, hospitals, employers, etc? Are we to pay a border force to roam the streets searching for illegal immigrants? The most sensible obvious option is for government departments to identify people when interacting with them and to pass on their details to border control when they identify illegal immigrants. As for full time jobs, it hardly takes a few minutes to ask for ID and for a visa where required. You apply for school places well in advance, a bit of extra paperwork wouldn't be onerous.

If you look at Money Laundering regs, as an example, those who come into contact with it (not just government employees) are obliged to do checks, and to report to the state where necessary. Irritating for those of us who have to comply, but realistically it's the only possible way to get a handle on it.


I don't even know what the proposal actually was - Bob Hughes I'd need some evidence to believe that, illegal immigrants are put to the top of the queue in other situations (e.g. housing) as they're classed as vulnerable. Here? I don't know, but it's not obvious. Also, all children are prioritised to some extent, by location, older siblings in the school, etc. Priorities matter.


This didn't make it into policy...

In reply to MG:



Oh come on, the article makes it pretty clear (especially Morgan's response) that both the identification and sanctioning of illegals were part of the same package of proposals. The suggestion was not primarily that the illegals might be passively found. it was that schools would actively attempt to find them through passport checks etc. You're being disingenuous.

In reply to BnB:


I agree! with some caveats:

Immigration is just a tool that Governments use/allow to fuel the economic growth model which is out of hand and utterly subservient to greed and power.

Politics also involves copious amounts of bullshit which we only manage to argue with until we grow weary. Ministers often "talk tough" on cracking down on tax evasion when in reality HMRC do f*ck all about the £135 Billion/annum unpaid tax from Big Corporates whilst at the same time smashing the crap out of the little guy who runs a small business that just about make his family a living.

How many people know, or even care that 10% of the Worlds Gross Product, some $8 Trillion of the total $80+ Trillion/annum, flows untaxed and unchecked through Holland every year. And that sleepy little place that is a fully paid up member of the EU who are "cracking down on tax evasion". My butt they are.

Buybooksandanythingyouwant.com, lovely company, employs loads of people in huge warehouses all over the UK. We spend billions on their products every year. All invoices flow in and out of Luxembourg. There are hundreds of examples of how the UK's profits and the taxes that should be applied flow out of here every year.

What has tax got to do with this post you may ask! Well, probably sod all at first glance, but if we look a little deeper we'll recognise that if Big Corporates actually paid what they owe then we could better afford to help the World's destitute, persecuted and needy: from refugees to immigrants and most certainly our own institutionally unemployed and deprived.

My opinion: we should all stop talking about the effects of greed and start focusing on greed itself - at every level.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, there are scraps of information in the article and its not clear. It hardly matters, either you think punishing children for their parents behaviour is OK, or you don't.

In reply to MG:


I don't, and neither did the government. Much ado about nothing.

In reply to Postmanpat:
'either you think punishing children for their parents behaviour is OK, or you don't.'

I'm pretty sure that you don't. I'm not so sure about Theresa May though; I suspect she didn't see her proposal in those terms, and didn't understand the possible issues even when they were pointed out to her.

A bit reminiscent of another lady Tory PM I could mention, but I may be extrapolating a bit

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



As I suggested earlier. I think her and her department were rushing around desperately looking for any idea they could for identifying and disincentivising illegal immigrants. Hence the vans. Not their finest ideas.

As for May on immigration. I am not clear whether she really believes it should come down to tens of thousands or was just doing her job or she thinks that this is what the public wants so acts on it. I fear the former and that is rather depressing.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Are they? I don't think that is true; can you provide any evidence to support this?

As far as I am aware, there is a general duty to assist people who are genuinely homeless, but that doesn't favour people on grounds of immigration status. There are ten categories of "priority need" for housing under the Housing Act 1996 (and subsequent statutory instruments) but none of them relate to immigration status. In fact, the position is against immigrants - in law, if you have a home in any country you aren't classed as "homeless" for these purposes.

I do worry that a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment is down to misconceptions like this. If you think that immigrants get a better deal than UK residents (whereas they actually get a worse one) of course you will be more likely to support measures which discriminate against them in other ways, as it seems like evening the playing field.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

You sound suspiciously like an expert. And you are bringing facts to the table. I'd watch it, they'll be coming for you soon.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


They're classed as unintentionally homeless, and so are higher up the queue because of that. I didn't mean *because* they're illegal, it is because of associated reasons that are always there for those in their position. That wasn't clear, sorry.


I worked (well, volunteered) in a homeless charity helping people with the legal aspects of looking for housing, and I'm happy I've got enough knowledge here to comment, although I'm not an expert. If you're an asylum seeker then you've not got a home you can be in elsewhere, by definition. If you're illegal how would the government show that you have a home elsewhere?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

>
I think I am right in saying that decades ago social housing was allocated largely on the basis of a waiting list. This was changed by legislation basing allocation on need. The result was that many people on the waiting list interpreted this as favouring people who hadn't been "waiting" long, manyof whom were immigrants. Hence the feeling that the system "favoured" immigrants.

Even now, it is likely that new arrivals from poor countries are going to come high on the "needs" basis and therefore get housing allocated ahead of existing "locals".

So the system doesn't favour migrants but one can see why people interpret it as doing so.

In reply to thomasadixon:


There was a brouhaha a few years back about legal migrants getting put to the top of the queue - a highly dubious a claim. But i haven't seen anywhere a suggestion that illegal immigrants are getting put to the top of housing queues.

Quite the opposite. David Cameron announced rules to ensure that priority is given to local people when allocating social housing. For private renters, landlords are supposed to check their tenants passports and visa status to make sure they are not letting flats to illegal immigrants.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tough-new-housing-rules-to-control-immig...

In reply to thomasadixon:


But the fact that they are illegal immigrants makes them uneligible for help. e.g. this from South Croydon:

https://www.croydon.gov.uk/housing/optadv/homeless

Being eligible for assistance means you are entitled to help with housing from a local authority. Although most UK residents are eligible for such help, some people from abroad are not. You may not be eligible if:
you are a visitor to this country
you are a foreign student or sponsored immigrant
you are an illegal immigrant

the Home Office has refused you asylum
you are not habitually resident in the UK or Ireland

In reply to thomasadixon:

I've also volunteered assisting with the homeless, giving free legal advice. What I realised from doing so was how the system includes various measures that make it harder for an immigrant to obtain help, by comparison to another person in the same situation.

The point I made above (not as clearly as I could have done, apologies) related to "intentional" homelessness - i.e. you are intentionally homeless if you have a home anywhere in the world, and the relevant council can (and will) use that to deny assistance (even if e.g. you have no money and can't get to the other country to use that accommodation).

I just don't really see how the system helps immigrants any more than anyone else. They get the same help, or less, as anyone else - it's harder for them to demonstrate "local connection" (necessary for social housing) as they aren't as likely to have links to the area; and they can be refused help if they are illegally here (as noted above). If what you are saying is, they tend to be in greater need and we have a priority based system, well that may be true. But I don't see how that is unfair.

I personally think it would be fairly shocking to allocate emergency housing assistance without taking into account need - would you rather see more vulnerable people out on the streets just because they weren't born here?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think that's probably a good summary of how some issues arise. Personally, however, I think that is the fairer system, for the reasons I give below.

Something I saw quoted recently from a friend in Turkey - a disabled child begging there was making a point of showing an ID card to demonstrate that they were Turkish, rather than Syrian, because they presumed people would be more generous. It just makes me very sad - is that the kind of world we want to live in?

In reply to Bob Hughes:

You *may* not be eligible, or you may be, depending.

The local aspect was a relevant factor before Cameron's legislation, and is still a relevant factor, but it's only one factor among many. Asylum seeker (so almost certainly illegal immigrant) with kids and you're well above a single local.

Anyway, the thread's about school places, any info on that? If you're given a house near a school do you jump to the top of the list? Probably you'll jump locals that are now further away than you and don't have any siblings in the school since you're closer, and so have a higher priority.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Such as?


I know. Shocking tbh how easily you can be "intentionally" homeless.


All I said was that the way priorities work in housing meant that illegal immigrants can jump over people already here and already in need, nothing about whether it was fair/right/whatever. I imagine the same is true for school places.


Of course you have to take into account need. I'd rather that people who chose to come here illegally were removed from the country (or prevented from entering in the first place), and so vulnerable people now on the streets because they are lower priority were able to be housed.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:





Oh god, a whole spiel of made up fantasy, well done.

Let's look at the question again, this is your chance for a second answer, no conferring, no looking at other people's papers, your sixty seconds starts now; the actual question was...

Ok, who and when do we say; "sorry that's it, we've taken a few thousand, no more mate" to?

There are 3 million kids under 14 yrs old in Somalia, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

There are 8 million kids under 14 yrs old in Syria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

There are 40 million kids under 14 yrs old in Nigeria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

Or are you saying we should only allow in those with the money and ability to make it to the UK?


.

In reply to Big Ger:

How do you propose stopping those sufficiently desperate from arriving? And if they do get here anyway, what do you propose doing? Leave their children uneducated, without medical care or housing?

In reply to MG:


Hello? Sorry, there seems to be a fault on the line; where have I said I would stop people from arriving?

Pete Pozman posited that we shoudl allow "a few thousand" in, so best ask him.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

. (Free movement within the EU is a rather different kettle of fish, however.

We should be clear the right is not for anyone to move freely as they like, it is for WORKERS.

"Freedom of movement for WORKERS shall be secured within the Community.
Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between WORKERS of the Member States as regards , EMPLOYMENT remuneration and other conditions of WORK and EMPLOYMENT
It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of EMPLOYMENT actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;( WORK)
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of EMPLOYMENT in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been EMPLOYED in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service"

In reply to Big Ger:


Just above e.g. "There are 40 million kids under 14 yrs old in Nigeria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)"

In reply to Big Ger:



I understand the few thousand was a record high this year, so Pete can feel good about himself .
Controlled immigration is sensible, fair and good for everyone, uncontrolled is just not living in the real world, it's a unlimited supply, with a very limited resource .

In reply to MG:

That was a question to Pete Pozman.

In reply to Jim C:

Racist!!!



Obviously far too sensible a point. What about asylum seekers?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Just to complicate matters;



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38179653

In reply to Big Ger:




asylum seekers should ask for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.
Under the Dublin Regulation, an asylum seeker has to apply for asylum in the first EU country they entered, and, if they cross borders to another country after being fingerprinted, they can be returned to the former.

What the UK gets is 'Asylum shoppers' , those that continue to travel through many safe countries to claim asylum in their country of choice.

In reply to Jim C:



You correctly point out what the Dublin Regulations say, but that is EU policy, not international law. As far as I understand it there is no obligation under international law for refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach - a refugee needs protection under the treaties and can select the country they want to find protection in on that basis.

You are pro-Brexit aren't you? Do you know if we will no longer follow the Dublin regulations once we leave?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Utter bullshit, immigrants are less likely to be unemployed, and therefore a lot less likely to use social housing.
Indeed they are vastly underrepresented in social housing.
The only immigrant category that is over represented are non-EEA foreign born who have been in the country for more than 5 years.

In reply to RomTheBear:


http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-h...

In reply to RomTheBear:



Oh dear, Big Ger, has proved you have not first checked your facts , but have decided instead to rely on your knowledge of immigration.

In reply to Big Ger:



interestingly, on a night out last week I was walking in Glasgow on the way home walking to the station with a Polish chap, I stopped and gave some money to a street beggar, who thanked me , the Polish chap , who had stopped too, then told me off for giving money to a Rumanian. ( there was certainly an accent, he may well have been right)

In reply to RomTheBear:
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/characteristics-and-outcomes-of-migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market/

Since 1993, the employment rate for migrants has been lower than that of UK-born individuals. In recent years, the difference between migrant and UK-born employment rates has narrowed for men, but has stayed constant among women

In reply to RomTheBear:

Oh Rommy sweetheart. It's that reading problem again isn't it? You didn't spot the key words did you: "immigrants from POOR countries".

Incidentally, here's an interesting question: which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Message for Big Ger. I made my feelings clear way back in this thread. I think on topics like this it's best to go for a Trumpian response. So I'll stick with my gut which is telling me that it's wrong to mess children, any children, about where education is concerned.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Don't encourage him.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Nice sentiments, but the practicality is left unexplored, aka; "fine words butter no parsnips."

In reply to Jim C:

No, he's talking about all migration, which is nonsense in this context given that non-EU immigrants are not entitled to social housing in the majority of cases. Unemployment rates amongst EU immigrants are lower.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Stop assuming I misread. I know exactly what you meant. And you are wrong. Eligibility to social housing is based on needs in most case, not on whether you're from a poor or a rich country.
EU immigrants from the poorer EU countries have low rates of unemployment.


I have no clue, it seems to be a nonsensical question. But cricket is a boring game, that is a certainty.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm a thick Brexiteer Rom ,if you want to convince me of that , you will need to explain your assertion , with pictures, perhaps graphs, statistics. Proof.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Until you understand why this is a misapprehension, all that knowledge of yours is going to waste. Cricket is a simulacrum of life and an examination of character. The fact that it can resemble a treadmill more than an entertainment is part of the whole point. The likely absence of a clear result, the importance of the toss, the arcane rules which can see a batsman "not out" when the ball is going on to hit the stumps, the grinding down of an opponent by prolonging an innings at the expense of spectacle, the bullying of the batsman to test his resolve. All these reflect a person's experience of life with its injustices, frustrations and occasional triumphs. A test match isn't a game, it's a narrative.

In reply to RomTheBear:
>
You mean exactly as I wrote? 16.23. friday "decades ago social housing was allocated largely on the basis of a waiting list. This was changed by legislation basing allocation on need."

You are absolutely extraordinary!


And from Somalia and Bangladesh?


Come on, answer the question.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Have you ever tried to teach a cod to sing Wagner's Ring Cycle?

In reply to Big Ger:


Might be easier

In reply to Postmanpat:

And more productive.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>I am not clear whether she really believes it should come down to tens of thousands or was just doing her job or she thinks that this is what the public wants so acts on it. I fear the former and that is rather depressing.

Oh, really? I'm confident it's the latter. I don't think TM has much political idea in mind just now rather than obtaining the votes of the nationalist far right before they become an even more serious political force than they already are.

jcm

In reply to Postmanpat:

Indeed, you seem to be contradicting yourself.


For the most part someone from Somalia or Bangladesh would not be able to come into the country at all unless they have a seriously good job, or a family partner with significant income, and even if they managed to do so by some miracle, they would not be allowed to have access to social housing (or any recourse to public funds, in fact).



I did ! I told you, I have no clue, how the f*ck should I know ? Not sure what that has to do with anything, you seem obssessed.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Lol. So either you didn't read the whole post or you didn't understand the point being made. Jaw hits desk....

What the hell did you think I meant when I said that social housing had moved to a needs based system and that gave the unintentional impression to locals that it favoured immigrants?

>
So how do explain that an estimated 41% of the population of Bangalseshi origin and 80% of Somali origin lived in social housing? (sourse:migration watch 2005)

>
It's a probability question. You claim to be be good at that. Come on, switch the great Rom cereberum on!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Otherwise known as listening to the electorate. Mind you, they're all morons so best to ignore them. That should work.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Because the premise of your argument is that immigrants from poor countries somehow take more social housing because its needs based. It's no true, as for the most part, they are not entitled to it, and those from EU countries to a large extent don't need it as much as natives
It's well studied, what gives the unintentional impression that immigrant take up social housing is that they are more likely to live in privately rented accommodation, which are often in the same tennenents as those used for social housing.


So you're referring to a 2005 stat and people who presumably came a long time ago, probably became citizens, and well before immigration policy has made it near impossible for non-eu nationals to get social housing.
In that case, yes, but that is rather irrelevant to the current allocation of social housing.


I can't estimate probability on something I have no data on and no knowledge of.

In reply to RomTheBear:

>
Two points, firstly if it was true in 2005 and it was, then those impressions will have had a lasting impact. Secondly, people born in Zimbabwe,Uganda,Nigeria, Iran ,Jamaica, Ghana, Portugal Bangladesh, Turkey and Somalia were all substantially more likely to love in social housing than those born in the UK.

Thirdly, it still basically true now.

The Centrepiece survey (2014) estimates that 90% of immigrants are in categories that would make them eligible for social housing (if they meets the needs requirement). UK citizens (foreign born), Non EU foreign born, and non 8 East European EU area are all more likely to live in social housing than UK born. What you are confused by is that immigrants from the 8 East European countries are less likely to live in social housing. They use private rental accommodation. But they are an exception. It's not about them so don't try and narrow it down to them.

None of this means there is preferential access for immigrants, simply that a greater proportion of them meet the needs requirement.



I'll give you a clue. Cricket is a mass participation sport in India. It is barely played in China. Does that help?

In reply to Postmanpat:



They obviously don't, given that non-eu, are for the most part, banned from using social housing.
I guess it all depends as to whether you are talking about the current policy, or the policy ten or 20 years ago.
I assumed we were talking about the current situation as this seem most relevant. If not, fine.


Not really, it just tells me that at if I pick a person in India at random, he or she is more likely than a person picked at random in China to play cricket.

In reply to RomTheBear:
>
What are you referring to ? Anyone who has indefinite leave to remain and is habitually resident in the UK is eligible (on a needs basis) for social housing regardless of origin.



I was talking about why people might have gained a false impression, and that this impression remains.

>
So you don't think that somebody who plays cricket is more likely to score a 100 runs than somebody who doesn't?

In reply to Postmanpat:

But at the moment, to get ILR, in most cases you'd need to have either a partner with enough income so that you wouldn't qualify, or have a well paid job.


That, we agree, although I think the reason for them having this false impression are not, IMO, for the most part, due to the the ones you cited.
I think the main reason is simply that immigrants lives in higher proportion in areas where there is social housing, I doubt that the relatively low proportion of people who qualified ten or 20 years ago has much influence today.

What I heard mostly recently was people complaining about Eastern Europeans "jumping the queue" on social housing, despite the fact that there is no queue per se, and despite the fact that they overall use it a lot less. But maybe it's just me.


Yes, but I'm not sure whether that relates to your original question.

When you said " which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?"

What do you mean ? Any person at random, regardless of whether they play or not ? Or two person who already play cricket ? Or two person who don't play cricket but you give them a cricket bat and wait until one of them scores a century ?
Not sure what your thought experiment is and therefore I can't really answer your question.

In reply to RomTheBear:


So I think we are agreed:

1) A random Indian boy is more likely to play cricket than a random Chinese boy.

2) A person who plays cricket is more likely to score a 100 a person who does not play cricket.

So, on the basis of the above: which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a random boy from India or a random boy from China?

In reply to Postmanpat:




On the basis of the above, all I can say is, that if I pick at random any person from India, I'm more likely to pick someone who has scored a century at cricket than if I pick at random someone from china.

But if you showed me a boy from India, and a boy from china, and asked which one is more likely to become good enough to score a century (i assume this was your question ?) I wouldn't know.

In reply to Postmanpat:

So, given they have comparable populations, an Indian boy is more likely to score a century. What's your punchline?

In reply to MG:


He's not, he's just more likely to come across one.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Presumably you wouldn't know because you think I may have picked one of the very few Chinese boys who play cricket?

In reply to Postmanpat:

For example.
The likelihood for a specific individual within a goup to achieve any particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of such individuals in the group. Do we agree ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Ah, you've done one of your cheeky little edits at 12.24 radically changing your point.Anyway, so, you agree that a random Indian boy is more likely to to score a century than a random chinese boy?

Why is this, if not the much greater prevalence of cricket playing Indian boys

In reply to RomTheBear:


Why am I more likely to come across one?

In reply to MG:


Bear with me. Apparently Rommy doesn't agree with your statement.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not at all


You are more likely to pick a random Indian boy who scores a century than you're likely to pick a random Chinese boy who scores one. That we agree I think.

But if you presented me with an Indian boy and a Chinese boy, without telling me anything else appart from their origin, I would not be able to say which one is more likely to score a century (I assume this was the premise of your thought experiment, correct me if I am wrong)

In reply to RomTheBear:


>
Why?


Why does it make a difference if I pick a random Chinese and Indian boy or you pick a random Chinese and Indian boy?

In reply to Postmanpat:

As you said, the prevalence of cricket players in India is higher so you're more likely to pick one.


if I pick them at random, I know they've been picked at random. If you pick them at random and don't tell me, I'm missing a critical piece of information and can't say anything about their relative likelihood of playing cricket at all , and scoring a century.

Let me put the thought experiment back to you more clearly defined.

You need to hire a player for your cricket team, you are not allowed to watch them play.
I give you a choice between an Indian boy and a Chinese boy. I don't tell you anything about them or how they've been picked, appart from their nationality.

Which one do you think you should hire ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


>
On the basis of the relative prevalence of Indian boys who who play cricket.(your post 12.59)


Why not: does the prevalence of Indian boys that play cricket as opposed to Chinese boy who play cricket different when I pick them randomly than when you pick them randomly or when I show you my random picks?

In reply to RomTheBear:

>
That is a differnet argument. As I suggested (12.26) your point is not about the likelihood of a random Indian or Chinese scoring a century it's about whether I have honestly picked them randomly or told you that? Why didn't you just say "yes" to my suggestion?





The Indian.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, but you don't get it, in your original question, I don't know that they've been picked purely randomly, you just asked me whether an Indian boy is more likely to score a century than a Chinese boy. Answer: I don't know.

In reply to RomTheBear:


See my 12.26 question.

It's a red herring. Let's assume I have told you they are randomly picked and I have told you so and that I am honest.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Why ? You don't know they been picked randomly. I could have picked the best Chinese cricket player and picked an Indian boy who has never held a bat.

In reply to Postmanpat:



It's not a red herring, you can't make a rational decision without knowing they've been picked at pure random.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Sheesh. As above, that is not the point of the bloody discussion. Stick to the point.

The point of the discussion is whether a random Indian boy is more likely to score a century than a random Chinese boy, not whether you've been told they random or believe they are random!!!!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Ok, so your point is different from the original question then ?

If you ask me "I picked at pure random an Indian boy and a Chinese boy, which one is more likely to have scored a century" my answer is : the Indian boy.

But you asked me "which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?" Answer is : I don't know.

In reply to RomTheBear:

No. Come on, amaze me, what is the difference between "which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?" and "is a random Indian boy is more likely to score a century than a random Chinese boy"

You're seriously going to claim that you didn't infer the word random? I mean , really?

Anyway now take "random" as implied.

What is your answer?

In reply to RomTheBear:




So why didn't you say this when I asked you over an hour ago?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I gave exactly the same answer, that I didn't know.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Rom deliberate misunderstanding aside, why ask the question? You said it was interesting, on the face of it, it has an obvious answer.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Mary mother of Jesus, to this question at 12.26 "Presumably you wouldn't know because you think I may have picked one of the very few Chinese boys who play cricket?"

In reply to Postmanpat:


Can you explain why on earth I should assume they've been picked randomly. You just present me two individuals, one Indian, one Chinese, and ask me which one I think is most likely to score a century. Of course the only rational answer is : I don't know.


If you tell me they have been picked at random, then I'm more likely to get someone who has scored a century if I chose the Indian (based on your evidence that they are more prevalent in India)

In reply to Postmanpat:


Indeed, so you agree with me then ? I wouldn't be able to know, unless you tell me, they've been picked at random.

Not sure how to satisfy you, when I take your word to the letter, you complain, when I try to infer what you meant, you complain as well. Make up your mind.

In reply to RomTheBear:
>
Actually it's not. Given that if they are picked randomly then an Indian is more likely to score a century than a chinese so if you have only their origin to go on that rational thing is to use that information and choose the Indian.

But forget that.


Hurrah!!!!

So, moving swiftly on. If you randomly choose a random LGBT man and a random straight person, randomly, which is more likely to be HIV positive?

In reply to RomTheBear:


>
I agree that if you choose not to recognise that the choice of person was random you could raise that objection. But you didn't agree that this was your objection so I naturally assumed that this was not your point and inquired as to what your point was.

In reply to RomTheBear:



My point is: make sensible inferences, and if you are asked what you have inferred then answer the question.

In reply to MG:

See 13.43. I refers to a previous discussion I thought (wrongly it seems ) that by making the principle for a non controversial issue he might get it for the original one.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You're wrong, if you don't know how they've been picked, there is nothing to go on. No rational decision can be made, you might as well toss a coin.




hurrah for what ? For a rather obvious point of mathematics that is irrelevant to this thread ?


I don't know. Is there a reliable source showing worldwide prevalence of HIV amongst gay people is different ?
My first question would be : when and where ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Except you've made exactly the same logical fallacy as in the original argument. You mistook the prevalence of a characteristic with a group with the likelihood of an individual within a group to develop a characteristic.
The classic big mistake that has propped racists and discriminatory arguments for centuries.

In reply to RomTheBear:
>
Whatever


For you acknowledging an obvious point of mathematics rather than buggering about missing the point.


Well, here we go:

Penetrative Anal sex is defined as a primary high risk activity in transmitting HIV.

Gay and bisexual men partake in penetrative anal sex significantly more than straight people or lesbians.

What might we conclude about the likelihood of one randomly picked from the former group to one randomly picked from the latter contracting HIV?

In reply to RomTheBear:

>
So it's no longer an obvious point of mathematics?

I'm quite happy for you to explain the statistical or grammatical point you may or may not be making but if so why don't you do it,as opposed to wasting time on obscure pedantry?

In reply to Postmanpat:






Fron these two pieces of information, I can conclude nothing, as there could be other factor at play in transmission and behaviour we don't know about.
So you would need empirical evidence of the prevalence between those two groups to conclude anything.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No, don't avoid the point. Treat those two assertions as fact. The first is medically established and the second is confirmed by surveys. If you really think that either of the assertions are actually false then clearly the we cannot conclude anything.

So, for the sake of argument, accept the assertions as true, what do you conclude?

In reply to Postmanpat:


you're mixing up the two question you asked.


Meh, I think I've given you the point I was making pretty early on, summed up here :

"The likelihood for a specific individual within a goup to achieve any particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of such individuals in the group. Do we agree ?
"

instead you decided to alter your original thought experiment until it became no more than a trivial statement of the obvious that nobody ever argued against.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No you didn't get it, i'm not questionning whether these two assertions are true.

I'm saying, that, they are not sufficient to come to the conclusion you make. All you've done is highlited a factor favouring a higher prevalence of HIV amongst Gay and bisexual.
There could well be other factors pushing in the other direction, so you can't conclude from those two assertions alone that this is the case.
I'm not saying it is not true, it could well be that the two factors you identified are the overwhelming ones in this particular case, just highliting why your reasoning is flawed.

In reply to RomTheBear:




>
On the contrary, you have changed the basis of the question. I asked you a simple question: based on the premise that by and large Indians play cricket and Chinese don't, is a (random) Indian more likely than a (random) Chinese to score a century. It's a simple arithmetic question. It's got a simple answer: yes.

For reasons that one can only guess you chose to rephrase the question, thus implicitly not accepting the "trivial statement of the obvious" that I asked. Can you elaborate on what you infer from the phrase? If we made it "The likelihood for a random individual within a group to achieve any particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of such individuals in the group" what would you say?

In reply to RomTheBear:




>
So, if we inserted the clause "all other things being equal" would you accept the conclusion?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


You mean playing make-up-a-position-nobody's-holding-and-argue-against-that.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Isn't that the point of playing the devil's advocat?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes you can. If you know nothing about how they've been picked but you know that a greater proportion of Indians are good at rcicket, it's more likely that the Indian's better at cricket.

Take another example to make this clear. A fully grown man and a ten year old kid, you know nothing about how they've been picked or anything else about them - which do you expect to be heavier?

Not often I say this, Pat's is right, you're wrong.

In reply to Hugh J:


Nope. Devil's advocate is where 1. you argue against a position that someone *is* holding; and 2. where you don't necessarilly agree with the argument you're making.

BJ has missed on both points. On 1. the OP suggested children of immigrants should not be put to the back of the queue, BJ pretends he's saying they should get special treatment and be put to the front. On 2. Bj agrees with his own argument.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Give up - Rom's into his fullishness to deep to admit he's talking nonsense.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Thankyou. I may be my own worst enemy...

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Who gives a flying . . . .

They are both full of themselves, talking semantics and missing the point of the thread, It's just completely boring pseudo-intellectual BS.

Get real and discuss the real issues instead of this self-centred oneupmanship.

In reply to Hugh J:


has the question of the cricket player been answered since if so I would like to know the best volleyball player.

In reply to KevinD:

Or the best Grand Tour cyclist - a Frenchman or a Kenyan?

Or the best President - an American or a Kenyan?

In reply to Hugh J:

I think you're taking this a bit to seriously, Hugh!

In reply to Postmanpat:
And you're often Rom

In reply to Hugh J:

Ah, just passing the day. Now you're all back you can go back to the topic .

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Hang on, didn't I just read that you were trying to get your profile deleted???!! Wouldn't not posting be a good start?

In reply to Hugh J:

They are both full of themselves, talking semantics and missing the point of the thread, It's just completely boring pseudo-intellectual BS.

It's like two bald men arguing over a comb...

In reply to Postmanpat:


There is another explanation, a far more likely one....

Find yourself a decent sized cod mate.

In reply to Big Ger:



It has the advantage that I could simply boff the cod on the head

In reply to FactorXXX:



Oi, that's a very sensitive subject

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That's the idea of getting my profile deleted!

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Sorry but completely wrong. If you don't know they've been picked randomly, all you've got is two outcomes possible, I've been given a Chinese cricket god, or a Indian cricket god, and only one choice possible. That's a probability of 0.5 to make the right choice.




Same as above. you're wrong.

You've got a pot A of 9 blue marbles and 1 yellow marble, and another pot B of 9 yellow marbles and 1 blue marble.
I then take secretly out a blue marble out of one of the two pots.
What is the probability that I took the blue marble from pot A ?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Meanwhile, back in reality land;

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, but of course you'd have to prove that all other things are being equal, which is probably impossible.
Hence the need for empirical data, in this case.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Rommy, generous chap that I am, I'll give you some free careers advice. Stick to the IT and don't try and become a cricket selector or an HIV policy maker

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

"You mean playing make-up-a-position-nobody's-holding-and-argue-against-that. "

err, devils advocate - a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument

so yes.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you should be the one taking the advice home.
There is reason why there are anti-discrimnation laws, and a reason why medical science uses carefully collected empirical data : that's because half baked assumptions don't work, especially when they are based on a logical fallacy and incorrect use of probabilities.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Sometimes a rational deduction saves lives. That's why HIV programmes target MSMs.

Incidentally, have you thought of taking this up with the BBC claim that black people are less likely than white people to become Prime Minister?

In reply to Postmanpat:

What you were making was not a rational deduction, it was an assumption that the factor you identified was the overwhelming one. I'm guessing this assumption is probably backed up by empirical data, but without it, it would just be an assumption.

And yes, as you noted, HIV programmes seem to target MSM - not necessarily gay men - and that's because they rely on scientifically evidence, not half baked assumptions.


This BBC documentary was so full of misinterpretation of statistics and logical fallacies, I had to stop watching. But, it's the BBC, no surprise there.
They have NO EVIDENCE that a given black person is systematically less likely than another white person to become PM, all they have is evidence that this is less likely to happen.

As far as I can tell all they've shown with their stats is that black peoples are underrepresented in posisitions that would make them likely to become PM.
From that they jumped to the conclusion that there must be systematic racial bias at the various points of selection. It's not necessarily the case (it may be true, but their data does not allow to say that)

In reply to RomTheBear:


Which was a rational deduction. Obviously it is backed up by empirical data. You missed a job opportunity in the tobacco industry in the 1960s.


Do you think that gay men are more likely to be MSN that the general population?


Actually, I can agree with you on that

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not it wasn't a rational deduction, you missed a key variable.

If I tell you : "most cats like milk, I drink milk, therefore it is likely that I am a cat" is that a correct rational deduction according to you ?


Provably, although it doesn't mean it's particularly useful.


finally ! So do you agree that the likelihood of an individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?

In reply to RomTheBear:



But the deduction is not that. It is "most cats drink milk, I am a cat, therefore it is likely that I drink milk"

The reason being that the majority of things drinking milk are not cats.


We've been over the use of the word "random" a million times. It was implied initially and should be taken as read.

So do you agree that the likelihood of a random individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

If I asked you: which is more likely one day to catch a mouse, a blue tit chick or a barn owl chick, would you really, honestly not take the implication the two would be picked at random? If you wouldn't your use of language is different to practically everyone else's.

c.f. "which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?"

In reply to Postmanpat:



Yes, but you didn't seem to get it, as you then argued that even if we didn't know how the two potential players were selected, you would chose the Indian, assuming that the prevalence of cricket players in India was linked to the likelihood of this particular individual to be good at cricket.

As I pointed out, it's a bad assumption based on a logical fallacy, weirdly enough you seem to agree with me when I point out the same fallacy in the BBC documentary.


Well yes, of course, if by that you actually mean the probability of picking randomly such an induvidual.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I said that they were randomly selected randomly on a random basis . Can you please direct me to a textbook on statistics that explains your point because you are not doing it very well. Your while argument seems to depend on the randomly selected individual not actually being randomly selected.


When did I do that? I agreed that the BBC documentary was full of fallacies but I didn't say the basic premise that a black person was less likely to become PM than a white person was a fallacy.


So are you trying to pretend that there is a difference between the phrase "random individual " and "Picking randomly such an individual"

In reply to Postmanpat:



nope, it wasn't. Your deduction was closer to this :

"Milk causes indigestion in most beings, most cats drink more milk than most being, therefore I conclude that the rate of indigestion in cats is higher than in most beings."

It looks like a rational deduction, but it isn't, it is in fact based on an assumption that cats are no different than most being. It may or may not be true but you can deduct this from just that.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No, it's this " Milk causes indigestion in all beings, most cats drink more milk than most being, therefore, all other things being equal, I conclude that the rate of indigestion in cats is higher than in most beings."

In reply to Postmanpat:

Let me ask the question again :

do you agree that the likelihood of an individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?


Well of course there is, the probability of a given randomly selected individual to achieve something is not necessarily the same as the probability to pick such an individual

Let me ask you this question :

I randomly picked a cricket player. It so happens that I have picked, by pure chance, the best cricket player in the world.
Do you think his likelihood to score a century has anything to do with the likelihood for me to have picked him ? Or are they two distinct and unrelated probabilities ?

In reply to RomTheBear:



>
If there is one cricketer in a group of ten people, and you randomly pick a random indivudual randomly out of that ten, what is your chance of picking the cricketer?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Indeed, but you had to add "all other things being equal" to make it a valid deduction, otherwise, it is an assumption.

In reply to RomTheBear:


All other things being equal amongst the random individuals in the group, no I don't.

All you seem to doing is arguing is that if you drill down and get more information on individual members of the group then the likelihood changes.

In reply to RomTheBear:


As I did hours and hours and hours ago. You can spend you life trying to pick up on things that, unless you are just trolling, are obviously implied. You could also just add the clause that you think is necessary but not explicit and thus reach agreement, instead of deliberately misunderstanding to argue a non point.

In reply to Postmanpat:


One out of ten. Of course. But it doesn't tell me anything about the likelihood of that person I picked to score a century. These are two distinct probabilities.

In reply to Postmanpat: "Incidentally, have you thought of taking this up with the BBC claim that black people are less likely than white people to become Prime Minister?"

How about a senior member of the Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction party(APRC) or a security guard from Argos in Holloway, North London for President of Gambia

In reply to Postmanpat:

No, I didn't misunderstand your point, on the contrary, I pointed out what was missing.
I'm not trolling, you're obviously making a theoretical point of logic, so I just pointed out what was missing in your deduction.

In reply to RomTheBear:



If you didn't misunderstand my point must be trolling because it's been made clear to you that the words "random" and "all other things being equal" should be taken as read. If you think they need repeating every time, fine, but instead of arguing that the point is wrong just add "as long as the picks and poeple are random and all other things are equal."

In reply to RomTheBear:

So if five out ten cricketers score a century, what is the chance, all other things being equal, of randomly picking a person randomly, all other things being equal,out of the random group of ten, who will score a century, all other things being equal?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Which I what I've said repeteadly, but for some reason, every time I asked whether you agree with that unless you know this you reasoning is wrong, you disagree.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Where did I do that ? I clarified it several times. If that's your sole point then why didn't you say so?

In reply to Postmanpat:


In that case, the answer depends on whether your group of ten is representative of all cricketeers. If that's indeed what you mean by "all others things being equal", then the answer is in your definition : 5 out of 10.

In reply to Postmanpat and RomTheBear:

Can you guys just meet up and have a fight, or have sex or whatever you need to do?

In reply to RomTheBear:
In reply to Postmanpat

This is a message from your respective bosses,
"If you two don't get some work done today, you're fired."

In reply to RomTheBear:


You've misunderstood. We are talking about the original random group of 10 of which one is one random member is a cricketer. Other things being equal, in the random group of which one member is a cricketer, what is the chance of a person scoring a century, all other things being equal. We know that five out ten cricketers score a century, all other things being equal.
What is the chance of a member of the random group, all other things being equal, scoring a century?
What is the random chance of you picking a person (in the random group of ten) who scores a century, all other things being equal?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Then you are categorically, mathematically wrong, and haven't understood one thing I've said.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I see, one other crucial detail that was "implied"...


i don't get it, you just said above that it's a group of ten with only one cricketer, so it's not a random group.
Which is it ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


No, because you are failing to explain it. It seems to hang on the difference between a "particular individual" (a random one, randomly chosen-as I keep repeating) and a "randomly selected individual"
You have not explained what that difference is.


If If you link to an article on probability I'll look at that.

In reply to RomTheBear:




Jesus wept. It's the original group of ten I referred to . It has one cricketer.Lets just say a random generation picked ten and the only thing it well tell the chooser is that,a s random luck had it, one is a cricketer.

I repeat the question on that basis. What's your answer?

In reply to Postmanpat:

"What's your answer?"

Is it "How else do you think we get a tie on Gladstone Small?"

In reply to Postmanpat:

No, it doesn't make a difference.



I think it's more the high school textbook you need to look at. These can be independents probabilities.

Let me illustrate.

I take a bunch of ten coins, toss them all on the floor.
I get 7 heads and 3 tails, and I let you know that result.

I then ask you to blindly pick one of those coins on the floor.

What is the probability that you picked, at random, one of the coin that was heads ?

Now if you were to throw that same coin again, what would be the probability that you get heads ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


597984164949856