BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,904
quite right. It was ridiculous of me to assume that her suicide had anything to do with her transgender issues (am I allowed to say issues) or the newspaper article in question. I apologise
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Is there really no thread on Littlejohn's latest bullying outrage?
- Thread starter spring hall convert
- Start date
quite right. It was ridiculous of me to assume that her suicide had anything to do with her transgender issues (am I allowed to say issues) or the newspaper article in question. I apologise
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,904
Don't worry the irony is not lost on me.
It is such a ridiculous discussion i can't resist getting involved in it though
When she has been publicly outed, with parents unable to accept her for who she is now, and seemingly afraid to want their children around her, I would say yes, it is ridiculous to assume that it's about how her sexual identity fits with her body, and more about the way she is treated by society, the way her life has been turned upside down, perhaps abuse suffered from people on the streets after they read in the mail about her. if that is the case, then the problem isn't her sexual identity, the problem is society.
Since we don't know all the details, we don't know whether it was still a problem or not.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,721
Whatever the circumstances quite typical Daily Mail. Taking a single localised issue and attempting to make a wider point. I get as an annoyed with the "left" grouping gay men, lesbian woman and whoever else into one homogeneous group.
The evidence, or my opinion, seeing as i live here BF, not 12,000 miles away, is what i see.........and yes i know quite a few teachers over HERE, from family members. Maybe the teachers are different in OZ, i can only state my opinion........like it or not. By the way, the teachers i do know are nice people, just seem to follow the way that they have been taught.
It would be nice to see the young children just taught/learn, not have these issues put in their minds at an early age....imo of course.
Don't worry the irony is not lost on me.
It is such a ridiculous discussion i can't resist getting involved in it though
I only got involved in it because you did.....
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,904
Can you be a little more specific about the things being taught that you don't agree with?
What are the leftie views being taught that you disagree with?
I am not sure things are that different between British and Australian schools/teachers. especially if the problem is that we are a bunch of lefties spreading our leftie propaganda to the impressionable youth of our respective countries.
I tend to foster leftie values such as getting along, helping each other, treating people with respect and good sportsmanship in my classroom. are these things you disagree with?
Firstly as i do not live in Oz, i can not rightfully comment on the difference "between British and Australian schools/teachers".
"I tend to foster leftie values such as getting along, helping each other, treating people with respect and good sportsmanship in my classroom. are these things you disagree with?" quote
Why would i disagree with any of those things, you have just assumed that BF.
In my day i was taught all of those things, and i was just taught maths, history, English etc. These days our kids have education on things that really are not for young ears.........let them be kids for a while..........do they really need to know about these things at the age of 4-11.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,904
So what are the things that are being taught in schools that you disagree with?
Where is the evidence that Littlejohns column had any influence over Miss Meadows decision to take her own life (assuming she did)?
Littlejohn did not put Miss Meadow in the public domain, she was already there, firstly following the letters distributed to parents by the school, informing them of the upcoming change in the teachers circumstances and secondly in the local press. It seems to me that the majority of people who may have caused Miss Meadows any distress in person would have been local and therefore more than likely aware of her situation prior to the Daily Mail article. There is no evidence the Daily Mail Article caused her any distress (besides any further distress).
If you read the petition introduction it reads "Lucy Meadows was found dead this week. If it was suicide, it was brought on from the hounding she received from Daily Mail readers. " There is absolutely no evidence of this, indeed we do not even know the cause of death yet. The justification for this statement is "The possibility of this happening was enough for the daily mail to take down his original article without comment."
Assuming it was suicide, there is only one individual who knows the reasons behind the decision to take her life and it seems to me that there is much hand-ringing and assumption made in order to fullfil agenda's against Littlejohn and/or The Daily Mail.
For the record I do not read The Daily Mail, I have never read anything written by Littlejohn (in this circumstance I read only that which was included in the Guardian link by the OP). I can see views about the many issues raised within this thread from both sides, but the original issue raised was to sign a petition to effectively blame Littlejohn for Miss Meadows death (again making the assumption it was suicide).
Littlejohn may well be a bigot & a bully, I do not know and have no basis to form an opinion on that. What concerns me is agenda's using a tragic event to serve their purposes regardless of and without full knowledge of the facts surrounding the circumstances of her death.
You may notice I don't post very often but this story intrigued me and I felt that most discussion has understandably diverted to other issues within this, rather than the origina issue of placing the blame, in my opinion unjustly at this point.
Littlejohn did not put Miss Meadow in the public domain, she was already there, firstly following the letters distributed to parents by the school, informing them of the upcoming change in the teachers circumstances and secondly in the local press. It seems to me that the majority of people who may have caused Miss Meadows any distress in person would have been local and therefore more than likely aware of her situation prior to the Daily Mail article. There is no evidence the Daily Mail Article caused her any distress (besides any further distress).
If you read the petition introduction it reads "Lucy Meadows was found dead this week. If it was suicide, it was brought on from the hounding she received from Daily Mail readers. " There is absolutely no evidence of this, indeed we do not even know the cause of death yet. The justification for this statement is "The possibility of this happening was enough for the daily mail to take down his original article without comment."
Assuming it was suicide, there is only one individual who knows the reasons behind the decision to take her life and it seems to me that there is much hand-ringing and assumption made in order to fullfil agenda's against Littlejohn and/or The Daily Mail.
For the record I do not read The Daily Mail, I have never read anything written by Littlejohn (in this circumstance I read only that which was included in the Guardian link by the OP). I can see views about the many issues raised within this thread from both sides, but the original issue raised was to sign a petition to effectively blame Littlejohn for Miss Meadows death (again making the assumption it was suicide).
Littlejohn may well be a bigot & a bully, I do not know and have no basis to form an opinion on that. What concerns me is agenda's using a tragic event to serve their purposes regardless of and without full knowledge of the facts surrounding the circumstances of her death.
You may notice I don't post very often but this story intrigued me and I felt that most discussion has understandably diverted to other issues within this, rather than the origina issue of placing the blame, in my opinion unjustly at this point.
Bit late tonight BF, but here is just one example.....and not from the DM....
. Over the Labour years our history has been changed, important bits being left out/changed etc.Conservative Part Conference: schoolchildren 'ignorant of the past', says Gove - Telegraph
Good post
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,904
Bit late tonight BF, but here is just one example.....and not from the DM....
Conservative Part Conference: schoolchildren 'ignorant of the past', says Gove - Telegraph
I have to agree with you there. It is one of my frustrations as a teacher that we are letting subjects like history, geography and such fall by the wayside. In my opinion based on my experiences over here (I know many British teachers who agree though) the reason for this is twofold:
Firstly their is only so much space in the curriculum and so much time in the day. Modern day teachers are currently expected to to teach many skills that has traditionally been the responsibility of the parents. respect, turn taking, social skills, sex education, etc etc the list goes on.
Secondly society, business and industry constantly encourages schools to go back to basics and teach kids reading writing and arithmetic so these three subjects take up 3/5ths of our teaching time. Once you factor in Art, ,music, languages, PE time and the necessity to cover the skills in my first point something has to give.
What this all means is that teachers try to teach two things at once. For example I will teach these kids how to write a sentence about the wife's of Henry VII. In My opinions what tends to happen here is that the two lessons get confused and the child comes away with neither the facts about Henry VII or the ability to write a decent sentences (I admit I am rather out on my own with this way of thinking in the current climate of education but the point is that this has nothing to do with my political stance).
I would also like to point out that I can't see how not teaching history or any of this discussion is part of any left wing ideology or conspiracy.
Last edited:
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
That be a bit like standing on the terraces,well sitting down at a match,it's never always football that is the subject of conversation,at the same time i appreciate [MENTION=12740]pork pie[/MENTION] and the viewpoint,besides i know nothing of the story,the persons or do i buy a particular newspaper and therefore have nothing further to add,other than Good evening,well night for me,or is it morning.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,904
If he only wants to talk about football I have to wonder why on earth he would open a threat that clearly has nothing to do with it?
A bit like walking over to some people standing on the concourse enjoying a beer and a chat about badger baiting and telling them they shouldn't be talking about that in a football stadium.
Another...... School sports day: competitive or not? - Parentdish
State schools not doing enough to encourage 'winners' in sport, claims Bristol MP Charlotte Leslie | This is Bristol
And to balance it.....a view from the leftie Guardian.... A little competition | Rebecca Front | Comment is free | The Guardian
Oh, and from today's tabloid BF.........
Dumbing down of state education has made Britain more unequal than 25 years ago - Telegraph
Dumbing down of state education has made Britain more unequal than 25 years ago - Telegraph
When i was at school, you had children that were good at studies and some that were good at sport, some were good at both. On sports day you had the choice to take part or watch.
I went to my sons sports days, and all the children had to compete, in TEAMS. There were no winners, and plenty of children that really did not want to compete in front of parents and their classmates. Some felt they had let their mates down, some cried, some seemed to be ignored when they completely fell apart in their event.
But of course, it was another crackpot idea brought in.
Surely, as iv'e said imo, these are just kids (4-11) is it not best just to teach them, rather than try to social engineer them.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,904
I have to disagree with the main premise of the first article. Am i right in thinking that scholarships are still offered for fee paying schools? And some of these scholarships are for sporting excellence? I would suggest that this coupled with fee paying schools being better equipped than state schools and that sport is compulsory after school and at weekends would explain the imbalance mentioned more than some wishy washy nonsense about non competitiveness.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,904
Some school sports days are a joke but there is social pressure to get all kids to do sport. Otherwise schools are accused of doing nothing about childhood obesity. I was told by a parent a couple of years ago to 'make' her daughter run laps because she was overweight and it was time 'we' did something about it. (I had visions of me chasing her round the track with a cattle prod). any after a range of weak excusing about why she couldn't run I told her that she would have to run (well walk was the most i could 'make' her do (we don't have funding for cattle prods) unless she had a note from mum saying she was lame, crook or what ever the weak excuse was. Of course I was safe in the knowledge that mum would back me up and not provide her with the relevant notes.
Let's just say we I didn't have the backing of mum and the notes flowed week in week out for the rest of the year.
I know this is a single story from a single school but in my experience it reflects the pressures that schools are trying to work under it trying to keep parents, government, industry, health experts etc etc happy and be seen to be doing the best for students.
I also believe that schools and teachers are easy targets for the ills of society and can easily be blamed for most problems in our communities when in fact we are fighting the tide of poor parenting, poor government and the general apathy of society to do anything about anything when it is far easier to blame schools for their problems.