Makes you proud to be British

CL, was expecting your comments and glad to see you didn't disappoint. ;)

My view on schooling is all should be able to achieve to the best of their ability, the fact is the local school did not do that. My eldest is a great child but circumstances have given her a pretty unfair start in life and the local comp did not deliver. My wife and I then took the decision to go private as we wanted the best possible for her.

Yes, stand by your principles, I agree with but only to a point, where we did live (Hertford) there were 2 decent comps on the doorstep, I'd have sent her to them quite happily.

I agree on grammar schools being divisive and I do have issues with those just below the thrshold. Latest research apparently states the brain is not fully developed until aged about 24, so choosing at 11 seems wrong.

I think principles are correct but at times, they need to be looked at and maybe swallow your pride and go against them. But that is my view and I'm happy to accept you view things differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Take an example CL, where someone believes that the state should intervene to close down public schools, since they think this would benefit the overall education system.

But, since the government doesn't close public schools, that person would be perfectly justified in sending their kids to a public school, since they currently offer better schooling in certain areas.

I'd love to sometimes discuss your life-choices CL. Most people take decisions based on a range of reasons. This often opens them up to the unjust criticism of being a hypocrit (or a wimp !?).

---

Noel, what you are saying is irrelevant to my argument.My position is, people who say "I don't like private education" then send their children to private schools are hypocrites.

A bloke goes in to the doctor and says "doctor my arm hurts when I move it up and down."

Doctor says "well don't do it then."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biara

CL, was expecting your comments and glad to see you didn't disappoint. ;)

My view on schooling is all should be able to achieve to the best of their ability, the fact is the local school did not do that. My eldest is a great child but circumstances have given her a pretty unfair start in life and the local comp did not deliver. My wife and I then took the decision to go private as we wanted the best possible for her.

Yes, stand by your principles, I agree with but only to a point, where we did live (Hertford) there were 2 decent comps on the doorstep, I'd have sent her to them quite happily.

I agree on grammar schools being divisive and I do have issues with those just below the thrshold. Latest research apparently states the brain is not fully developed until aged about 24, so choosing at 11 seems wrong.

I think principles are correct but at times, they need to be looked at and maybe swallow your pride and go against them. But that is my view and I'm happy to accept you view things differently.

---

Biara there is nothing wrong with changing your principles when you realise they are wrong. I've done lots of things in my life that were wrong, and I can't change them now. All I can do is make sure I don't do them again, by changing my ideas on certain things.

To criticise something for being good is dishonest and hypocritical. You say the private school is giving your daughter a better education, then in the next breath you say I don't like private.

The honest thing to say is "I used to believe in state education, but since my daughter has been going to private school, I've seen the light.Now I support private education."

That isn't what you are doing though. You're stabbing in the back the very principles that make your daughter's education possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Biara there is nothing wrong with changing your principles when you realise they are wrong. I've done lots of things in my life that were wrong, and I can't change them now. All I can do is make sure I don't do them again, by changing my ideas on certain things.

To criticise something for being good is dishonest and hypocritical. You say the private school is giving your daughter a better education, then in the next breath you say I don't like private.

The honest thing to say is "I used to believe in state education, but since my daughter has been going to private school, I've seen the light.Now I support private education."

That isn't what you are doing though. You're stabbing in the back the very principles that make your daughter's education possible.

---

1st bold - like the honesty
2nd bold - I believe in education, as I've stated on other posts, I'm still not a fan of private education, but of good education. I criticise the fact that I have to pay for something that I feel should be provided in the local comprehensive. If I lived in other parts of the country, this education would be provided. I accept the comment on hypocrisy, I recognise that, hence I said it. I told the head that I wasn't a fan of private schools, she appreciated the honesty, but I told her I liked her school and what it can provide.

I still believe in state education and those who know me, are aware of where I actually work. I know I could get the same money for alot less hassle and much less stress, but I believe in how education can help all. In fact I've spent precious little time in so-called 'good' schools, maybe that's why I'm losing my hair. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

It worked so well did it Witton? Right answer this please. What happens to the children who only just fail their 11+ and are sent to secondary schools?

---

As happened to my best fried at Primary, they go to a good secondary modern, are succesful in their GCE's (as they were then) and then he rejoined me in the 6th form at the Grammar School and went off to Uni.

Just because you went to a secondary modern it didn't mean you were consigned to the scrap heap.

The school involved was Fearns (the base for the Pennine Bridleway) and it was a much better school in the 60's and 70s than it is now as a "Community Sports College".

It used to be a secondary school and now it's a second rate school with parents chosing Hassy High, Alder Grange and Whitwoth High ahead of it - something that would never have happened 30 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

You just see things too black and white CL (although I'm sure 99.9% of the time it's just to get a rise out of folk as surely no-one is really so naive and judgemental?) ... life isn't that simple nor are the decisions that people have to make. Yes, you can argue that someone who's against private schools but sends their kids to one is a hypocrite, but, if the state school on offer is no good, why should the child suffer for their parents' beliefs? Sometimes morals and principles have to be compromised and, although doing so will cause people mental anguish and weaken their stance, it certainly doesn't make them wimps or bad people. In fact knowing when to compromise your own principles for the sake of others takes wisdom, maturity and courage. If only because you have to defend your actions to blinkered individuals who adopt a holier than thou attitude.

Also I think your corrupting of the "Forum Mascots" thread which was a bit of lighthearted and good natured fun with your personal and unprovoked attack of LD, was totally out of order and not in the spirit of this forum. I've enjoyed some of my debates with you but I think you need to wind your head in a bit.

---

If we assume that black and white mean good and evil, then choosing a 'grey' mixture is unacceptable. Now there are times when we can't act on our principles, because discrimination by the state prevents us from doing so.

That isn't so with Biara's stand. The government isn't stopping him sending his daughter to a state school. Therefore disliking private=sending daughter to state school.

Just a paragraph on Longdogs. I got in to trouble over that. It winds me up though when people of expected intelligence come on here lying to us. Telling us one thing and practising another. Then when I point out the hypocrisy she starts insulting me. That combined with other inappropriate remarks made at an earlier date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Noel, what you are saying is irrelevant to my argument.

---

No it isn't. You just don't want to accept it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

As happened to my best fried at Primary, they go to a good secondary modern, are succesful in their GCE's (as they were then) and then he rejoined me in the 6th form at the Grammar School and went off to Uni.

Just because you went to a secondary modern it didn't mean you were consigned to the scrap heap.

The school involved was Fearns (the base for the Pennine Bridleway) and it was a much better school in the 60's and 70s than it is now as a "Community Sports College".

It used to be a secondary school and now it's a second rate school with parents chosing Hassy High, Alder Grange and Whitwoth High ahead of it - something that would never have happened 30 years ago.

---

Yes that is one possibility Witton, but here is the other and most common. Those kids end up in a secondary school where the local yobs from dysfunctional families make their lives miserable, and their education impossible.

Now some kids still manage to succeed, but the rest just give up. Hardly anybody from my school, if any, past their 0 level exams. That's because the lessons were interrupted by insolence and arguing. Scrap heap education you see.

Biara - unfortunately I have a tendancy to side with CL - I wouldn't label you as a hypocrite, but you do seem to respond in a way that has inconsistancies.

Post 325 for example point 2 - low achieving schools still produce high class pupils.
So then why chose private if you really believe that? Especially with the home back up that you could provide as a teacher yourself.


If a child goes to an athletics club at the age of 11, we give them a taste of various events, assess them and try and point them in the direction that we feel they are best suited - of course they must also prefer and want to do that. It's no good trying to make a High Jumper out of someone who wants to sprint - they will not be in the sport for long.
If at 14 you find out that they have a talent for Discus, they can change direction.

For me the same principles apply to education.

We are trying to ensure that we equip children with the tools to cope with life. For some that's an academic education - and there the Grammar's would provide.
For other's it would be a vocational perhaps, this is where the old system worked.

It wasn't elitist. My parents were shoe factory people - I went to the Grammar, my 3 brothers to the SM.
They all got well educated with good jobs.
For two of them the link to their first job started in 4th year (now year 10) when they were placed with a Plumber and an architect on work experience and both gained specific qualifications and during their schooling and left to a job with further training linked to it.

It also wasn't rigid. Many of the kids from the SM came back in to the 6th form, as the SM also still ofered that academic route, but perhaps just tailored in a slightly different way to accomodate the later development of their intake - so these kids were not written off.

We did actually have a small number of kids that moved during the Year 7 - 11 period - usually in Year 8/9 before subject choices had been made - so I assume that there was some continuous assessment in place rather than just 100% relying on the 11+.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Yes that is one possibility Witton, but here is the other and most common. Those kids end up in a secondary school where the local yobs from dysfunctional families make their lives miserable, and their education impossible.

Now some kids still manage to succeed, but the rest just give up. Hardly anybody from my school, if any, past their 0 level exams. That's because the lessons were interrupted by insolence and arguing. Scrap heap education you see.

---

But you are talking about now and I'm refering to the system of the 60s and 70s.
The SM school that I am referring to wasn't full of yobs hampering the kids that wanted to learn.

The system has been tinkered with so much that we don't have a system anymore.

I mean really - can anybody tell me what relevance a "Community Sports College" has for the kids that go there.
We have St Bedes at the back of me. It's Catholic. So it's intake is on religious grounds but the "branding" makes you think that sporty kids would benefit from gong there.

Witton Park High - "Business & Technology College" - full of the next generation of Sir Clive Sinclair's and Alan Sugars?
I don't think so.

The country is awash with branding, gimmicks ... in all walks of live now - back to basics I say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

No it isn't. You just don't want to accept it.

---

Noel you seem to think that what ever the government in this country does, is right. Anyway I've just read your post again and the answers to it are contained in my previous posts. Pick the bones out of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

The country is awash with branding, gimmicks ... in all walks of live now - back to basics I say.

---

Is "back to basics" a slogan or an initiative? :D

But on a serious note, I can't think of a win-win way to sort out education. You either have all the potentially more disruptive kids together, in which case they'll never find anyone able to teach them. Or you mix them with the more academic kids who generally are more interested in getting a decent education. In which case you hinder the bright kids.

The answer is probably somewhere in between, which is what we have now (some private schools, some streaming in state schools).

and here's another example.

I went to a primary school called Western in Stacksteads. A huge stone school that had 2 buildings, 3 school yards.
Knocked down about 30 years ago and turned in to bungalows aimed at retired folk.
It used to look after around 110 kids in the Primary + around 40 kids in the nursery.
It could have catered for 300 - 400 and had a fully equipped Gym, Woodwork Room - it was used by Rossendale College for what we called Night School in the 70s.

The neighbouring School was Tunstead Cof E which was a similarly big stone school, that needed some work done on it - no nursery, but approx 200 kids there. It was also knocked down and made way for housing.

The CofE school had better lobbying organisation - so when both schools were knocked down, the new school was built on the new site as Holy Trinity CoE Stacksteads.

Capacity - around 200 - work that one out!!!

But to get to my main point - when I was at Primary School at Western - only 5 kids were on free school meals.

When my kids were at school at Holy Trinity in the 90s, 68% were on free school meals.

Now before anyone jumps up and down I am not trying to stigmatise people who take free school meals - but it does give a guide.

1. Society has been allowed to go down the pan.

2. Too many people sit on their jacksy and send their kids to school to get rid of them so they can watch Jeremy Kyle in peace.

3. The schools get a constantly spiralling down calibre of intake and have done so for 30 years.

4. The quality of the teachers has similarly spiralled.

Teachers - I'm not picking on you all before again you jump on me!

Conclusion - any solution to the education system is prone to failure unless it is all tied in with a total reform of the welfare and social system so that bone idle good-for-nothings are not rewarded for being lazy and breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Noel you seem to think that what ever the government in this country does, is right.

---

I have in the past wondered how I'm viewed on this forum, based on the arguments I've put forward. That's very enlightening, thanks CL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Anyway I've just read your post again and the answers to it are contained in my previous posts. Pick the bones out of them.

---

I disagree. Moreover, your original assertion was flawed based on arguments previously stated in my posts prior to the ones you're now talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

2. Too many people sit on their jacksy and send their kids to school to get rid of them so they can watch Jeremy Kyle in peace.

---

I think the problem with the type of parents you're talking about is that they don't send their kids to school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

But you are talking about now and I'm refering to the system of the 60s and 70s.
The SM school that I am referring to wasn't full of yobs hampering the kids that wanted to learn.

The system has been tinkered with so much that we don't have a system anymore.

I mean really - can anybody tell me what relevance a "Community Sports College" has for the kids that go there.
We have St Bedes at the back of me. It's Catholic. So it's intake is on religious grounds but the "branding" makes you think that sporty kids would benefit from gong there.

Witton Park High - "Business & Technology College" - full of the next generation of Sir Clive Sinclair's and Alan Sugars?
I don't think so.

The country is awash with branding, gimmicks ... in all walks of live now - back to basics I say.

---

That's a good point witton. The downward spiral was bound to happen though, by allowing the government more and more power over our lives. Now people don't know how to think without an order from the government.Just look at Noel.

Anyway when people give up their freedom to the state, the consequences have to be a gradual decline in educational standards. After all those in power don't want anyone answering back.

All education should be private. People shouldn't allow the state to dictate how their children are educated. That is a private matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

The downward spiral was bound to happen though, by allowing the government more and more power over our lives. Now people don't know how to think without an order from the government.Just look at Noel.

---

You just wait CL, until Gordon Brown tells me I should be offended. Then you'll be sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

All education should be private. People shouldn't allow the state to dictate how their children are educated. That is a private matter.

---

Step 1. All schools made private.

Step 2. School band together to maintain standards and curriculum (these form regional LEAs and a national supervising body).

Step 3. Parents demand more say in how schools are run.

Step 4. Government bows to public pressure so creates ministry in charge of overseeing education.

And we're back where we started. Thanks CL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

I think the problem with the type of parents you're talking about is that they don't send their kids to school.

---

If I was a parent, which I don't want to be, I wouldn't let my child near a state school. I'd educate them at home myself. I'd achieve far more in 2hours than some schools achieve in a week or a month.

Of course I don't want the stress, because I'd have the state kicking my front door in(in the nicest possible way), demanding to know why MY kids aren't being indoctrinated in one of their mauling grounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

If we assume that black and white mean good and evil, then choosing a 'grey' mixture is unacceptable. Now there are times when we can't act on our principles, because discrimination by the state prevents us from doing so.

That isn't so with Biara's stand. The government isn't stopping him sending his daughter to a state school. Therefore disliking private=sending daughter to state school.

Just a paragraph on Longdogs. I got in to trouble over that. It winds me up though when people of expected intelligence come on here lying to us. Telling us one thing and practising another. Then when I point out the hypocrisy she starts insulting me. That combined with other inappropriate remarks made at an earlier date.

---

That's a hell of an assumption to make. What about the political spectrum? What about sexuality? etc, etc, etc Hardly anything in life is as simple as good and evil or black and white. There are simply too many variables and permutations in the human condition to be so simplistic. Shades of grey aren't unacceptable, more often than not they're the most rational, compassionate and embracing stance to take.

I totally accept that Biara's decision could be interpreted as hypocritical but, I don't think you'd find many parents who'd put their own moral/political beliefs ahead of the long term welfare of their children. You could even argue that to do so would be selfish and immoral. This is an example of a variable making a black and white judgment impossible. An action that may seem immoral/wrong from one angle can easily appear moral/right from another. Also chucking around accusations of being a "wimp" etc is just petty , personal and beneath the debating standards that you like to credit yourself with.

The whole point of debating is to conduct a reasoned and impersonal discussion presenting valid evidence and informed argument. If someone succeeds in that then you should be gracious enough to concede points and, if necessary, change your own viewpoint. However, and I think this is why you manage to rub so many people up the wrong way on this forum rather than your often interesting/controversial opinions, you don't do this.

You tend to adopt a "fingers in ears loudly saying la, la, la" stone-walling approach, refusing to answer specific questions, not citing valid sources but instead resorting to circumstantial evidence, strange irrelevant analogies and subjective personal experience. This is why discussions involving you often become personal, it's nothing to do with your debating skill as you don't debate.

Come on, play the game properly and in the right spirit. You're obviously not stupid and the sort of nonsense with LD, The Heathens, me at times etc that we've all witnessed should be beneath you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Step 1. All schools made private.

Step 2. School band together to maintain standards and curriculum (these form regional LEAs and a national supervising body).

Step 3. Parents demand more say in how schools are run.

Step 4. Government bows to public pressure so creates ministry in charge of overseeing education.

And we're back where we started. Thanks CL.

---

Not if people stick to proper principles instead of practising hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

That's a hell of an assumption to make. What about the political spectrum? What about sexuality? etc, etc, etc Hardly anything in life is as simple as good and evil or black and white. There are simply too many variables and permutations in the human condition to be so simplistic. Shades of grey aren't unacceptable, more often than not they're the most rational, compassionate and embracing stance to take.

I totally accept that Biara's decision could be interpreted as hypocritical but, I don't think you'd find many parents who'd put their own moral/political beliefs ahead of the long term welfare of their children. You could even argue that to do so would be selfish and immoral. This is an example of a variable making a black and white judgment impossible. An action that may seem immoral/wrong from one angle can easily appear moral/right from another. Also chucking around accusations of being a "wimp" etc is just petty , personal and beneath the debating standards that you like to credit yourself with.

The whole point of debating is to conduct a reasoned and impersonal discussion presenting valid evidence and informed argument. If someone succeeds in that then you should be gracious enough to concede points and, if necessary, change your own viewpoint. However, and I think this is why you manage to rub so many people up the wrong way on this forum rather than your often interesting/controversial opinions, you don't do this.

You tend to adopt a "fingers in ears loudly saying la, la, la" stone-walling approach, refusing to answer specific questions, not citing valid sources but instead resorting to circumstantial evidence, strange irrelevant analogies and subjective personal experience. This is why discussions involving you often become personal, it's nothing to do with your debating skill as you don't debate.

Come on, play the game properly and in the right spirit. You're obviously not stupid and the sort of nonsense with LD, The Heathens, me at times etc that we've all witnessed should be beneath you.

---

What justification is there for choosing something that is grey, when one can choose white?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Not if people stick to proper principles instead of practising hypocrisy.

---

I really feel these debates would be able to progress further if we addressed your fixation on hypocrisy.

When did you start to have this animosity towards what you regard as hypocrisy? Was it linked to any life events?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

What justification is there for choosing something that is grey, when one can choose white?

---

Because, when you step back and consider all of the variables, external factors and viewpoints (ie: The Real World) very few things are black and white. Also, more often than not, which end is black and which is white comes down to personal preference, further complicating the distinction.

With the lose of Cadburys to Kraft and the inevitable job losses to follow another nail ,albeit seemingly small is knocked into the coffin of G.B. industries.
It seems to me ,when 'New Labour' came to power first Blair then Brown made a deliberate decision to back there mates in the City over manufacturing.While some other countries where prepared to invest in emerging technologies and existing industries our set of clowns offered tax breaks and incentives to attract a small group of already overpaid bankers and financiers.
Now its all gone wrong in the City and Hedge Fund managers are threating to relocate to Geneva, Britain is to be left with a dwindling collection of cottage industries, low paid callcentre and service sector jobs and an alarming increase in youth unemployment.
What I find most annoying in this great democracy of ours is the three people who seem to hold the most power are Brown, Mandleson and Levy. I cant remember voting for any of these dipshits,can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john doe

With the lose of Cadburys to Kraft and the inevitable job losses to follow another nail ,albeit seemingly small is knocked into the coffin of G.B. industries.
It seems to me ,when 'New Labour' came to power first Blair then Brown made a deliberate decision to back there mates in the City over manufacturing.While some other countries where prepared to invest in emerging technologies and existing industries our set of clowns offered tax breaks and incentives to attract a small group of already overpaid bankers and financiers.
Now its all gone wrong in the City and Hedge Fund managers are threating to relocate to Geneva, Britain is to be left with a dwindling collection of cottage industries, low paid callcentre and service sector jobs and an alarming increase in youth unemployment.
What I find most annoying in this great democracy of ours is the three people who seem to hold the most power are Brown, Mandleson and Levy. I cant remember voting for any of these dipshits,can you?

---

I know we're all against a finance-based economy at the moment. However, in the long run, it's still a good idea to have a strong financial sector.

I don't think there has ever been a decision by government to deliberately get rid of industry, with the exception of the previous conservative government, who would argue that this was to depower a militant union that threatened the rule of law.

The truth is that companies would rather pay £5 an hour than £25 an hour for skilled staff. They can't do this in Britain. Also, it's not as though Cadbury wasn't also playing this game. They employ 5000 people in the UK, and 40,000 people abroad.

You're right in your final point. It will be different when Cameron and Osborne are in power. Traditional industries will still dwindle and they'll be even more supportive of the financial sector. However, we'll be able to blame ourselves for electing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

I really feel these debates would be able to progress further if we addressed your fixation on hypocrisy.

When did you start to have this animosity towards what you regard as hypocrisy? Was it linked to any life events?

---

Actually it was when I started debating with you.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

What justification is there for choosing something that is grey, when one can choose white?

---

What you seem to see as 'white' is very different to what many people see as white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

Because, when you step back and consider all of the variables, external factors and viewpoints (ie: The Real World) very few things are black and white. Also, more often than not, which end is black and which is white comes down to personal preference, further complicating the distinction.

---

If there isn't any black and white, there also isn't any grey. Grey IS a mixture of black and white.

Only by identifying the blacks and whites can you distinguish between the shades of grey. In other words if you cannot define black and white(good and evil), you have no chance of defining grey.

Seriously, no chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

In other words if you cannot define black and white.

---

You can't define it because it's subjective; your idea of white may differ from Nikalas's (for example).

I would say it's the other way round: because you can't define black and white, everything is grey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheHeathens

You can't define it because it's subjective; your idea of white may differ from Nikalas's (for example).

I would say it's the other way round: because you can't define black and white, everything is grey.

---

If it is subjective then there can't be any grey either. Since human beings are quite capable of distinguishing and defining good from evil it cannot be subjective.

"Captain I can't believe he's dead!"
"Doctor...is this a dead man?"

Sorry I got that from Star-Trek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Since human beings are quite capable of distinguishing and defining good from evil.

---

So what is good and evil then?

Is it what the bible or the Koran tells us?
Is it what the laws of a country tell us (laws differ across countries)?
Is it what is generally accepted in society (one 'evil' thing in one society may not be in another - abortion for instance)?

We all live by our own rules with our own ideas about what is good and evil based on our upbringing, the society we live in, religion and the rules of the country amongst other variables.

Because of this, my ideas will differ from yours and yours will differ from Nikalas's, whose ideas will in turn differ from Noel's. Without uniformity, it's not possible to define good and evil or black and white.

We all have ideas which won't vary massively but with so many different variations on the definition of black and white, does that not make it grey?

But CL, there is so much in life that can not be categorised at either evil or not evil. Things such as the variety of things we have been debating on this thread. Issues of race, migration, gender, education, politics, etc.

I fear this good/evil debate is side-tracking us once again.

I've decided against trying to get back on thread, and am happy to run with this good/evil thing for a while.

CL, please give your opinion on whether these things are good or evil. You're not allowed to pass, since you say all things can be defined as one or the other.

1. The NHS
2. Mobile phones
3. Marmite
4. Disqualifications for lack of kit in fell races
5. The current UK Government
6. The Geneva convention
7. Pol Pot (when he was in power)
8. Sperm whales
9. The book Captain Corelli's Mandolin
10. Windows Vista

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

I've decided against trying to get back on thread, and am happy to run with this good/evil thing for a while.

CL, please give your opinion on whether these things are good or evil. You're not allowed to pass, since you say all things can be defined as one or the other.

1. The NHS
2. Mobile phones
3. Marmite
4. Disqualifications for lack of kit in fell races
5. The current UK Government
6. The Geneva convention
7. Pol Pot (when he was in power)
8. Sperm whales
9. The book Captain Corelli's Mandolin
10. Windows Vista

---

This should be interesting but I can sense a barrage of irrelevance grenades being dispatched out of Hayfield as we speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

I've decided against trying to get back on thread, and am happy to run with this good/evil thing for a while.

CL, please give your opinion on whether these things are good or evil. You're not allowed to pass, since you say all things can be defined as one or the other.

1. The NHS
2. Mobile phones
3. Marmite
4. Disqualifications for lack of kit in fell races
5. The current UK Government
6. The Geneva convention
7. Pol Pot (when he was in power)
8. Sperm whales
9. The book Captain Corelli's Mandolin
10. Windows Vista

---

Is he allowed to go into detail or is he limited to just 'good' or 'evil'?:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Fowler

Is he allowed to go into detail or is he limited to just 'good' or 'evil'?:D

---

Surely got to just be good or evil; we can eleborate on any of them later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Fowler

Is he allowed to go into detail or is he limited to just 'good' or 'evil'?:D

---

Good question Al. Lets see what CL says on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

...human beings are quite capable of distinguishing and defining good from evil it cannot be subjective.

---

Fair enough.

My turn first


1. The Nhs - Good
2. Mobile Phones - Good
3. Marmite - Evil
4. Disqualifications For Lack Of Kit In Fell Races - Good
5. The Current Uk Government - Good
6. The Geneva Convention - Pass!!!!
7. Pol Pot (when He Was In Power) - The What?
8. Sperm Whales - Good
9. The Book captain Corelli's Mandolin - Never Read It
10. Windows Vista - Evil!!!

We've come a long way from the BNP to marmite and good old Capt. Corelli. Did that fella get that pea out of his ear? ;)

I await Christopher's responses with interest