An article that I couldn't help smiling at...

[Ianto.W.]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I'm from a working class background and I passed my 11+ - so was everyone else in my class and they all passed too so how the heck was it discriminatory against us?

Willow I did not go because at the time I was not bright enough, so I and my like would only have held the bright kids up, I have no sour grapes as the attention we got enabled me to go in the third year, but it was at Haslingden not Accrington where my mates were. closing Grammar Schools was the begining of the demise of the standards we were expected to and most did attain.
Nothing whatsoever to do with 'the working classes' being disadvantaged,my parents could not afford the Grammar School uniform but I got cast of given by older pupils, that was the way of things, if you were prepared to work hard you succeeded, 'discrimination' rubbish. The upper middle classes did and still do send their children to private schools and why not If they can afford it and are prepared to sacrifice a few pleasures as they have to, nothing stopping anyone sending their kids, private if they are prepared to go without a few earthly pleasures, in my humble opinion.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

closing Grammar Schools was the begining of the demise of the standards we were expected to and most did attain.

Yes I have to agree with you on that. It seems to have been downhill ever since.

[blazey]

Grammar schools still exist dont they? How dramatically have the numbers decreased since you time at school?

I had a friend at college who went to Clitheroe Grammar and ended up violently attacking someone with a bike chain over a boy...
I dont think its the type of school that creates the pupil, its the teacher. Too many teachers are just wanting to rush through everything to keep to deadline and pass exams rather than teach anything.

Even one of my lecturers at uni doesnt ever want to discuss any of the set questions in detail til we understand, as she ' has a class straight after this one', which is appalling when your consider the fee's you pay to actually be there!

[Ianto.W.]

Originally Posted by blazey

Grammar schools still exist dont they? How dramatically have the numbers decreased since you time at school?

I had a friend at college who went to Clitheroe Grammar and ended up violently attacking someone with a bike chain over a boy...
I dont think its the type of school that creates the pupil, its the teacher. Too many teachers are just wanting to rush through everything to keep to deadline and pass exams rather than teach anything.

Even one of my lecturers at uni doesnt ever want to discuss any of the set questions in detail til we understand, as she ' has a class straight after this one', which is appalling when your consider the fee's you pay to actually be there!

Got to agree, I quoted in another post that the teachers need 'teaching' more thoroughly, as there are some very poor ones about. On of my grandsons teachers at what I call a 'bum' school, said to me "he need's more attention", my answer to her was, "give him some then". I now give him a few hours a week extra schooling, as he now stays with us at weekend.
These so called 6 month 'crashers' are not fit to teach primary education, in my view the most important time in any childs learning curve.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by blazey

I had a friend at college who went to Clitheroe Grammar and ended up violently attacking someone with a bike chain over a boy...
I dont think its the type of school that creates the pupil, its the teacher.

So Clitheroe Grammar school has lessons in attacking people with a bike chain ?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Why blacken the name of Clitheroe Grammar school by mentioning that one pupil attacked another with a bike chain (allegedly)?
Are you trying to imply that Grammar Schools are lacking in discipline?
And just because one pupil may have acted in such a manner, is no reason to generalise about all the others.

There are good schools and there are bad schools, like there are good teachers and there are bad teachers. Some pupils in school do not want to learn and they make it harder for their peers to learn, and for the teacher to get the lessons across. They act as distractors.

It is time we realised that all children are not suited to academia, and set those who aren't suited to book learning, to work doing something they are good at.
We all have a need to feel valued...and I have known some very brainy people who were absolutely rubbish at practical skills.

[lettie]

Originally Posted by Lilly

My friend at work is gay and he wasn't too happy when the Blood Transfusion Service wouldn't accept his blood because of the HIV risk.

He wasn't happy either when the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust wouldn't accept his bone marrow for the same reason.

He hasn't got HIV. As long as someone can produce a negative HIV test why can't they be accepted for these things?

I thought they were hard up for donors these days.

I have only just read this thread so please excuse me for butting in.

Negative HIV tests don't mean very much to the Blood Transfusion Service, this is because seroconversion to HIV happens about 12-14 weeks after contact with the virus. For example; if your friend had a negative HIV test prior to giving blood then had unprotected intercourse the night before his donation, he could be HIV positive but the test done at the time of the donation would say negative. Many of our heterosexual population with HIV are substance users or of Sub-Saharan African origin and are also not encouraged to give blood. The virus is now spreading amongst caucasians aged 15-25 because of unprotected sex (the figures are frightening).
HIV is not the only reason that homosexuals are seemingly discriminated against by the BTS. The resurgence of Syphillis in the last 5 years has been mainly amongst the homosexual community, it spread rapidly in places like Brighton and Manchester. Syphillis can be passed on through blood transfusion.
I know that it seems mean and discriminatory for homosexuals to be banned from giving blood but the BTS cannot take risks with peoples lives, nor can it afford to be doing detailed screening on everyone. People in 'at risk' categories would have to be repeatedly screened for months before making their donation. People in non-risk categories are still screened and even then, a very small number of infections can slip the net eg. there is currently no test to screen accurately for CJD.

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by lettie

I have only just read this thread so please excuse me for butting in.

Negative HIV tests don't mean very much to the Blood Transfusion Service, this is because seroconversion to HIV happens about 12-14 weeks after contact with the virus. For example; if your friend had a negative HIV test prior to giving blood then had unprotected intercourse the night before his donation, he could be HIV positive but the test done at the time of the donation would say negative. Many of our heterosexual population with HIV are substance users or of Sub-Saharan African origin and are also not encouraged to give blood. The virus is now spreading amongst caucasians aged 15-25 because of unprotected sex (the figures are frightening).
HIV is not the only reason that homosexuals are seemingly discriminated against by the BTS. The resurgence of Syphillis in the last 5 years has been mainly amongst the homosexual community, it spread rapidly in places like Brighton and Manchester. Syphillis can be passed on through blood transfusion.
I know that it seems mean and discriminatory for homosexuals to be banned from giving blood but the BTS cannot take risks with peoples lives, nor can it afford to be doing detailed screening on everyone. People in 'at risk' categories would have to be repeatedly screened for months before making their donation. People in non-risk categories are still screened and even then, a very small number of infections can slip the net eg. there is currently no test to screen accurately for CJD.

Thanks for that, Lettie.

[Eric]

[quote=Lilly;492346]

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

Spelling and grammar certainly do matter. They matter a hell of a lot. It's my pet subject and I could go on about it forever, in fact I can get quite boring on the subject. Wherever I go I pick up errors in shops, cafes, etc. and never fail to point them out to the poor soul who has come shopping with me.

I have been told several times to lighten up about it but I won't and it infuriates me that there is such apathy these days towards spelling and grammar. As you say, once we start to accept these shoddy efforts then standards slip and what hope for the next generation? Soon we'll have nobody left who can write properly in English.

My point earlier was that as there are usually some errors in most posts we could be here all day picking them up and then the threads get interrupted. I definitely think that if someone is to be a lawyer then they should have a good command of the English language and hope that the exams they have to take ensure that they are but if we start pulling their Accyweb posts to pieces for spelling/grammatical errors it detracts from the topic in hand.

Where would we stop?

English has been in a state of flux ever since it was cobbled together, and English is no longer the exclusive property of the English. The next generation has far more to worry about than syntactical redundancy and dangling participles.

I do think that one can be too picky. I would never point out, for example, that "someone" is singular and that all pronouns refurrring to it should also be singular ... "they" seems to be a little on the plooral side to me.

[BERNADETTE]

Eric could I just point out that the post you have quoted was written by Lilly although I do agree with what she said.

[MargaretR]

[quote=Eric;493266]

Originally Posted by Lilly

English has been in a state of flux ever since it was cobbled together, and English is no longer the exclusive property of the English. The next generation has far more to worry about than syntactical redundancy and dangling participles.

I do think that one can be too picky. I would never point out, for example, that "someone" is singular and that all pronouns refurrring to it should also be singular ... "they" seems to be a little on the plooral side to me.

I think we 'oldies' spent so much time and effort on spelling and grammar tests during our education that we expect subsequent generations to suffer the same to maintain standards.

There is much more to be learnt now because of advances in science, that english grammar can't be given the same importance that it was due to 'time factors' in the school curriculum.

With the advent of email and text messaging the differences between the old standards and the new are blatantly obvious.

I regret this reduction in standards too, and sometimes it annoys me that the youngsters are so blase(can't make an accent mark) about it, but we have to remember that languages are fluid and evolving by nature (anyone who has tried to read Chaucer will know what I mean ) -- it's just that the change is happening faster than it ever did before - due to new technology

[Eric]

[[email protected];493275]

Originally Posted by Eric

I think we 'oldies' spent so much time and effort on spelling and grammar tests during our education that we expect subsequent generations to suffer the same to maintain standards.

There is much more to be learnt now because of advances in science, that english grammar can't be given the same importance that it was due to 'time factors' in the school curriculum.

With the advent of email and text messaging the differences between the old standards and the new are blatantly obvious.

I regret this reduction in standards too, and sometimes it annoys me that the youngsters are so blase(can't make an accent mark) about it, but we have to remember that languages are fluid and evolving by nature (anyone who has tried to read Chaucer will know what I mean ) -- it's just that the change is happening faster than it ever did before - due to new technology

When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who, being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay.

Samuel Johnson was a pompous s**t, but he did make some good points.

[MargaretR]

[quote=Eric;

When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who, being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay.

Samuel Johnson was a pompous s**t, but he did make some good points.[/quote]

Who is quoting who?
What ever you are on Eric - I could do with some of it

[BERNADETTE]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Who is quoting who?
What ever you are on Eric - I could do with some of it

Does it not carry on like that when someone quotes wrong person as poster?

[Lilly]

[[email protected];493275]

Originally Posted by Eric

I think we 'oldies' spent so much time and effort on spelling and grammar tests during our education that we expect subsequent generations to suffer the same to maintain standards.

LOL at 'oldies'.

I'm not even 30 yet!

Cheers Margaret.