Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Richie Morris said:Yes it is and Blair got cross-party support for that war.
on fake evidence.
Jeffrey Archer persuaded a jury he was libelled by lying too.
Richie Morris said:Yes it is and Blair got cross-party support for that war.
Simster said:The same goes for the Weald:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/pd...ileName=\\school\\126\\s5_126068_20060302.pdf
Across all categories, the grades are 1 (oustanding) or 2 (good).
Your argument is falling apart from where I'm sitting, Phil.
turienzo's lovechild said:my degree will lead me to adding to the economy of the nation, yet i am being punished for it
oh, and as a graduate i will earn £140-300k(?) more than a non-graduate, so actually, he kind of is forcing me to
Fair dos fella, but some of those other published tables are not really worth the paper they're written on. It is Ofsted that turns up (often unannounced) and makes proper judgements based on actual guidelines using trained assessors.Superphil said:I'm not really having an arguement Simster, I agree that the ofsted reports are positive about both schools. My thoughts were based on a published league table I looked at, which did not look so good. Now I am as confused as I guess parents can be at times. I know I wouldn't just take ofsteds word for it, I'd ask around too, and read all the published tables, then make my decision. So far today I have decided not to have kids.
cjd said:Slightly changing the latest posts on this thread.........if Gordon Brown (god help us) is installed as Prime-Minister by June 25th and he picks his new cabinet,,,,,,if Ruth kelly is moved, will this delay the Falmer decision due by July 9th...??
Buzzer said:on fake evidence.
Jeffrey Archer persuaded a jury he was libelled by lying too.
London Calling said:No, remember she and who ever takes over will not have a clue about planning matters. Her Planning civil servants will make their case and recommendations to who ever is in charge for that date. The Minister will then sign it off.
Dr Q said:Despite all the pro's and con's of Blair's reign, I don't think we'd have been any better off under anyone else. The Tories are winning support now on the back of ten years of Labour Govnt. exactly the same reasons why Labour got in in '97, general public malaise/frustration with the incumbant government over a god knows how many years.
Would any other Labour PM or Tory PM have gone to war in Iraq, of course, the fact that we are so closely tied to the USA and the need to secure future strategic oil resources would have seen to it.
I fully expect the Tories to get in next time round, but I doubt bugger all will change under that slimeball Cameron.
Wanderer said:I was thinking for a moment, that this is a sensible, objective post, then you go and call Cameron a slimeball, so really, you're just like most people, you have political leanings to one party, and everyone else that matters must then logically be a slimball.
Clearly Cameron is a young, vibrant politician who needs to change his party, not unlike Blair in 1994, but of course, he is not Labour, so he is naturally a slimeball
You're right and it gets right on my tits. But to be honest, that's the way politics is going nowadays. I firmly believe Neil Kinnock would have made a firm and excellent prime minister, but his career was destroyed by the media who played on his looks because he went against their agenda. (I challenge you to find one photo taken in the Daily Mail that was in any way flattering). This is why Blair was given the chance to lead the Labour party after John Smith's demise.keaton said:He's a toff, who'll say anything to be liked. I know this can be levelled at pretty much any politician but he takes it to a ridicolous level.
keaton said:He's a toff, who'll say anything to be liked. I know this can be levelled at pretty much any politician but he takes it to a ridicolous level.