Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

I laughed too - but felt the Accountant didn't quite cover all my expertise so have added some letters after my name. Presumably, based on PD's logic, I now trump PD in any legal argument on here especially if he got it from Google 

Bit of a poor attempt - as any old fool knows that QC doesn't exist any more - since last Sept it has been KC.

And interesting that you only award yourself OBE, when the higher CBE is available before you get to knighthood etc.

Oh and for the record I am not gonged in any honours-list manner - although I have a fair few colleagues who are now Professor Sir this and Professor Dame that. But I am plain-old Dr (my PhD was awarded in 1991) and Prof (I was awarded my chair in 2004) - both will stay with me for ever, although when I ultimately retire fully I will be emeritus Prof. For a while (and to the great hilarity of many of my friends) I was also Dean - but Dean in an academic institution is a title given to someone when performing a particular role, which is typically time-limited. So I'm not longer the Dean as I've since moved to a more senior role.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes - it is a primary school Vlad. Now why not address the point.

You claimed that CofE primary schools don't exclude certain kids from particular backgrounds - the relevant groups being non christians. I've provided clear evidence that they (or some of them) do.

Address the point.

I accept then that some C of E primary schools exercise selective admission criteria but understand that some academy trust and free schools do to.

That all constitutes a problem to me.

Would it be fair then to say that you are more troubled by religious selection than the selection imposed by other schools.
Since to me selection of kids in terms of parental cash or academic ability seem more cynical than religious selection.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Shouldn't you be a KC? 

Ah yes - thank you and now amended. Us experts are liable to make mistakes sometime, don't you know..hmmph

Just haven't had any cases in a while - it's tedious but I've been focused on trying to pass my accountancy exams or writing on this damn message board, which just sucks you in so you don't have time to do any real work.

[ProfessorDavey]

I accept then that some C of E primary schools exercise selective admission criteria ...

I am pleased that you accept that Vlad.

but understand that some academy trust and free schools do to.

True, but outside of single sex schools, no school is legally permitted to discriminate on admissions on the basis of a protected characteristic, except faith schools. And even on sex there is a kind of tit-for-tat, so there are girls' schools that discriminate against boys and there are boys' schools which discriminate against girls. There is no equivalent for religious faith/lack of religious faith.

So if a non-faith academy school tried to do a kind of reverse discrimination - e.g. prioritising children who had not been baptised or requiring evidence that parents and their children did not attend church - then they be in legal hot-water before even you could scream "extreme secularists".

That all constitutes a problem to me.

I agree, but outside of single sex schools (and we can argue whether they are right or wrong) state-funded schools (indeed I think all schools) cannot discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic, except faith schools.

Would it be fair then to say that you are more troubled by religious selection than the selection imposed by other schools.

No - I'm concerned with school-side social engineering of admissions in general (and parental side, but that's more tricky). But faith schools admissions is just in a league of its own, as there is no pedagogical argument that children learn better within a religious mono-culture.

Agree or not, there are reasonable arguments that boys and girls learn in different ways so a single sex approach can have pedagogical advantages. Also that students learn better within cohorts of broadly similar ability, which is the argument for selection. Now I absolutely oppose selective schools, and I'm not a great fan of single sex school, not least because I think you can retain the pedagogical advantage without actually segregating the pupils into different schools. But there is, at least, a pedagogical argument, which simply isn't there for faith schools, which is basically just state-funded discriminatory social engineering.

Since to me selection of kids in terms of parental cash or academic ability seem more cynical than religious selection.

But in fundamental equalities terms, society doesn't agree - as religion, or lack thereof, is a protected characteristic. Amount of money we have isn't a protected characteristic, and nor is academic (or other) ability.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah yes - thank you and now amended. Us experts are liable to make mistakes sometime, don't you know..hmmph

Just haven't had any cases in a while - it's tedious but I've been focused on trying to pass my accountancy exams or writing on this damn message board, which just sucks you in so you don't have time to do any real work.

You, Hillside and Davey should form a group and call it KC and the Sunshine Band.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Bit of a poor attempt - as any old fool knows that QC doesn't exist any more - since last Sept it has been KC.

Yes, I'm sure you'll agree with me that us experts don't always get it right.

And interesting that you only award yourself OBE, when the higher CBE is available before you get to knighthood etc.

I've told Charley I'd like one of those some time this decade.

Oh and for the record I am not gonged in any honours-list manner - although I have a fair few colleagues who are now Professor Sir this and Professor Dame that. But I am plain-old Dr (my PhD was awarded in 1991) and Prof (I was awarded my chair in 2004) - both will stay with me for ever, although when I ultimately retire fully I will be emeritus Prof. For a while (and to the great hilarity of many of my friends) I was also Dean - but Dean in an academic institution is a title given to someone when performing a particular role, which is typically time-limited. So I'm not longer the Dean as I've since moved to a more senior role.

Good for you. Your posts on here stand or fail on their own merits.

Mine, on the other hand, trump everyone else's posts on here on any legal matters on any subject, given it's my area of expertise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But in fundamental equalities terms, society doesn't agree - as religion, or lack thereof, is a protected characteristic. Amount of money we have isn't a protected characteristic, and nor is academic (or other) ability.

Not sure this makes sense.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You, Hillside and Davey should form a group and call it KC and the Sunshine Band.

I'm not sure if that would fly - PD is a bit of a diva sometimes. They'd probably gang up on me and try to claim all the royalties. I'd have to take them to court..

[ProfessorDavey]

I've told Charley I'd like one of those some time this decade.

I'd wait for Rishi to get thrown out of no10 as you've always come across as a big fan-girl (or is it now fan-boy) of his so I'm sure he'll throw you at least a Damehood/Knighthood in his departing PM honours.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure if that would fly - PD is a bit of a diva sometimes. They'd probably gang up on me and try to claim all the royalties. I'd have to take them to court..

Which of the following is true:

A] Around 1994 I was in an Indy band called '10 Italians', which used to rehearse in a hospital in Stevenage.
B] I organised (and performed in) a benefit concert for environmental causes called 'Wild Aid' which took place in a pub in St Albans (which is no longer a pub).
C] I was once a soloist in a performance of Bach's St John Passion in a part that had just six notes (and three words repeated twice) in a piece lasting two hours.
D] When I was doing my PhD, one of my lab buddies went on to become Pete Doharty's manager (a difficult job if there ever was one).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'd wait for Rishi to get thrown out of no10 as you've always come across as a big fan-girl (or is it now fan-boy) of his so I'm sure he'll throw you at least a Damehood/Knighthood in his departing PM honours.

Good tip. I'm actually more impressed with his grandmother and his parents - takes some vision, grit and resilience to travel to the UK, build up enough to send for the rest of your family and make a life here. And his parents built up a business from nothing by working long hours and according to Rishi making a lot of sacrifices. Rishi enjoyed the fruits of their labour by attending private school. He used that productively as a stepping stone to make some money and apparently he has inherited their work ethic so I'll give him credit for that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Good tip. I'm actually more impressed with his grandmother and his parents - takes some vision, grit and resilience to travel to the UK, build up enough to send for the rest of your family and make a life here. And his parents built up a business from nothing by working long hours and according to Rishi making a lot of sacrifices. Rishi enjoyed the fruits of their labour by attending private school. He used that productively as a stepping stone to make some money and apparently he has inherited their work ethic so I'll give him credit for that.

I hope Conservative Party Central Office pay you well.

I think Rishi has learnt well from generations of his solidly professional middle class family that advantage begets advantage. Put to good use, I gather. I gather that the rumours about the recent Emergency Alert sent to phone users on Sunday being linked to Akshata Murty's Infosys are not true. However the policy in the budget to provide direct funding to just six private childminding agencies is true - as is the fact that Akshata Murty is a major shareholder in one of those companies that will benefit - Koru Kids.

[Dicky Underpants]

Well done - that's an improvement. Makes sense to stick to focusing on the arguments presented here rather than my supposed backstory.

Says the person who spends half his/her time here trying to cast doubt on Prof Davey's professional qualifications, and most of the rest arguing the toss over faulty, or at least tertiary, definitions of words, long after they have been shown to contradict themselves or to be totally in the wrong.

You seem to have quite an obsession with presenting yourself as always being in the right. Such people can be very forceful members of society - they can also be very dangerous, especially if male (A.E. van Vogt, of all people was the first the really draw attention to the phenomenon, and wrote an interesting monograph on it). But your personality would probably have been of greater interest to Alfred Adler......

[ProfessorDavey]

I suggest you educate yourself by reading this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

I sometimes wonder whether you actually bother to read what you post.

The very first words of the article are:

"Supernatural refers to phenomena or entities that are beyond the laws of nature."

This is pretty well word for word the definition that BHS and I have been using. Yet you continue to try to argue that supernatural is something to do with what is currently not known by science etc. If you are going to link to an article, at least you might want to check that it supports your argument rather than unequivocally confirming the point that others are making against you.

[ProfessorDavey]

This Prof https://www.surrey.ac.uk/people/johnjoe-mcfadden on the other hand seems to have published a book on it so I can verify his credentials and also if I find the time, read the book https://johnjoemcfadden.co.uk/books/life-is-simple-how-occams-razor-set-science-free-and-unlocked-the-universe/

So if we were discussing research about the prevalence of crime in Africa you might well posit the following.

This Prof https://www.law.ed.ac.uk/people/professor-alexander-mccall-smith on the other hand seems to have published a book on it so I can verify his credentials and also if I find the time, read the book https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002TXZRRM?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_tkin_0&storeType=ebooks

There is a reason why both John Joe McFadden and Alexander McCall-Smith separate their academic research activities and outputs from any pop science or fiction writing. As an academic it is pretty obvious to me but perhaps may not be to you - effectively they are doing so so as not to imply that the pop science or fiction writing is somehow scholarly academic output.

You will, no doubt have noticed that the book you refer to isn't mentioned on McFadden's research page, nor listed in his research publications, nor indeed is Occam even mentioned within the context of his research. Do you understand why VG?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am pleased that you accept that Vlad.

It does turn out though that these are for places in the case of oversubscription. i.e. no selection in the case of subscription or undersubscription.
And even in oversubscription it depends on where you go to church rather than that you go to church. Secular reasons seem prioritised above religious reasons.

[ProfessorDavey]

It does turn out though that these are for places in the case of oversubscription. i.e. no selection in the case of subscription or undersubscription.

Of course, but either a school isn't oversubscribed in which case it will be required to take all comers. Or it is oversubscribed and it will need a policy to decide who gets in and who doesn't. And in the case of this school, and many other faith school, that policy overly discriminates on the grounds of faith - if you are a practicing christian (even so of the right denomination) then you get in, if not, no place for you.

And even in oversubscription it depends on where you go to church rather than that you go to church. Secular reasons seem prioritised above religious reasons.

Not true - the criteria apply a hierarchy. Worship at specific churches top, then worshiping at other churches, then non worshipers. The priority is clearly based on faith criteria.

All other matters being equal, a worshipper get in under category 3, or category 5. The best a non worshipper can hope for is category 6, which is pretty close to 'crikey we are empty, if you've got a pulse we'll take you'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course, but either a school isn't oversubscribed in which case it will be required to take all comers. Or it is oversubscribed and it will need a policy to decide who gets in and who doesn't. And in the case of this school, and many other faith school, that policy overly discriminates on the grounds of faith - if you are a practicing christian (even so of the right denomination) then you get in, if not, no place for you.
Not true - the criteria apply a hierarchy. Worship at specific churches top, then worshiping at other churches, then non worshipers. The priority is clearly based on faith criteria.

The heirarchy seems to be children in any care then siblings then church locality then the rest. Over discrimination is hard to establish, isn't it.

It still seems nowhere near as cynical than schools selecting on parental cash and entrance test or similar creaming off.

[ProfessorDavey]

It does turn out though that these are for places in the case of oversubscription. i.e. no selection in the case of subscription or undersubscription.
And even in oversubscription it depends on where you go to church rather than that you go to church. Secular reasons seem prioritised above religious reasons.

Here is another example - nearer to me again, and this time RCC rather than CofE. Here is a little game - they have 14 criteria, guess how far you have to go down before you can be admitted if you aren't christian?

"1. Catholic ‘looked after’ children and Catholic children who ceased to be ‘looked after’ because they were adopted or made subject to Child Arrangements Orders or Special Guardianship Orders.

2. Catholic children who can evidence to the governing body that they have been in state care outside England and ceased to be in state care as a result of being adopted. A child is regarded as having been in state care in a place outside England if they were accommodated by a public authority, a religious organization or any other provider of care whose sole purpose is to benefit society.

3. Baptised Catholic children with a Certificate of Catholic Practice of families who will have a sibling at the School at the time of admission.

4. Baptised Catholic children with a Certificate of Catholic Practice of a member of staff of the School provided that the member of staff is the child's parent and (1) has been employed at the School for two or more years at the time of application, or (2) where the member of staff is recruited to fill a vacant post for which there is a demonstrable skill shortage. For the purposes of satisfying these criteria, a member of staff is defined as a permanent member of the teaching staff or leadership team. This definition does not include contract staff or peripatetic staff employed by HCC.

5. Baptised Catholic children with a Certificate of Catholic Practice who are determined by the governing body to be resident in the parish of St. Alban & St. Stephen. Please be aware that the parish information has been under review and, when finalized, will be available from the Parish Office at St. Alban & St. Stephen.

6. Other baptised Catholic children with a Certificate of Catholic Practice.

7. Other baptised Catholic children.

8. Other ‘looked after’ children and children who ceased to be ‘looked after’ because they were adopted or made subject to Child Arrangements Orders or Special Guardianship Orders.

9. Children who can evidence to the governing body that they have been in state care outside England and ceased to be in state care as a result of being adopted. A child is regarded as having been in state care in a place outside England if they were accommodated by a public authority, a religious organization or any other provider of care whose sole purpose is to benefit society.

10. Children who have a sibling at the School at the time of admission. First consideration will be given to those children of other Christian denominations who provide a certificate of baptism or whose minister supplies a supporting letter confirming membership of the Church or faith community.

11. Children of a member of staff of the School provided that the member of staff is the child's parentand (1) has been employed at the School for two or more years at the time at which the application, or (2) where the member of staff is recruited to fill a vacant post for which there is a demonstrable skill shortage. For the purposes of satisfying these criteria, a member of staff is defined as a permanent member of the teaching staff or leadership team. This definition does not include contract staff or peripatetic staff employed by HCC.

12. Children of Catechumens and members of other Eastern Christian Churches who provide a certificate of baptism and/or certificate/letter of entry in the order of Catechumens.

13. Children of other Christian denominations resident within the parish of St. Alban & St. Stephen who provide a certificate of baptism or whose minister supplies a supporting letter confirming membership of the Church or faith community.

14. Any other children."

[ProfessorDavey]

The heirarchy seems to be children in any care then siblings then church locality then the rest. Over discrimination is hard to establish, isn't it.

Care is always required to be top - yet some schools only put 'care' top if they are the right kind of child in care (i.e. of the right religion) otherwise down the criteria you go (see my other example).

The problem with siblings is you have to ask how the oldest sibling got in - unless the criteria had changed they'd have got in via the same discriminatory criteria. So if you are getting in under the sibling rule, you can bet your bottom dollar that the older sibling that allows you in under that rule got in because of their religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here is another example - nearer to me again, and this time RCC rather than CofE. Here is a little game - they have 14 criteria, guess how far you have to go down before you can be admitted if you aren't christian?

"1. Catholic ‘looked after’ children and Catholic children who ceased to be ‘looked after’ because they were adopted or made subject to Child Arrangements Orders or Special Guardianship Orders.

2. Catholic children who can evidence to the governing body that they have been in state care outside England and ceased to be in state care as a result of being adopted. A child is regarded as having been in state care in a place outside England if they were accommodated by a public authority, a religious organization or any other provider of care whose sole purpose is to benefit society.

3. Baptised Catholic children with a Certificate of Catholic Practice of families who will have a sibling at the School at the time of admission.

4. Baptised Catholic children with a Certificate of Catholic Practice of a member of staff of the School provided that the member of staff is the child's parent and (1) has been employed at the School for two or more years at the time of application, or (2) where the member of staff is recruited to fill a vacant post for which there is a demonstrable skill shortage. For the purposes of satisfying these criteria, a member of staff is defined as a permanent member of the teaching staff or leadership team. This definition does not include contract staff or peripatetic staff employed by HCC.

5. Baptised Catholic children with a Certificate of Catholic Practice who are determined by the governing body to be resident in the parish of St. Alban & St. Stephen. Please be aware that the parish information has been under review and, when finalized, will be available from the Parish Office at St. Alban & St. Stephen.

6. Other baptised Catholic children with a Certificate of Catholic Practice.

7. Other baptised Catholic children.

8. Other ‘looked after’ children and children who ceased to be ‘looked after’ because they were adopted or made subject to Child Arrangements Orders or Special Guardianship Orders.

9. Children who can evidence to the governing body that they have been in state care outside England and ceased to be in state care as a result of being adopted. A child is regarded as having been in state care in a place outside England if they were accommodated by a public authority, a religious organization or any other provider of care whose sole purpose is to benefit society.

10. Children who have a sibling at the School at the time of admission. First consideration will be given to those children of other Christian denominations who provide a certificate of baptism or whose minister supplies a supporting letter confirming membership of the Church or faith community.

11. Children of a member of staff of the School provided that the member of staff is the child's parentand (1) has been employed at the School for two or more years at the time at which the application, or (2) where the member of staff is recruited to fill a vacant post for which there is a demonstrable skill shortage. For the purposes of satisfying these criteria, a member of staff is defined as a permanent member of the teaching staff or leadership team. This definition does not include contract staff or peripatetic staff employed by HCC.

12. Children of Catechumens and members of other Eastern Christian Churches who provide a certificate of baptism and/or certificate/letter of entry in the order of Catechumens.

13. Children of other Christian denominations resident within the parish of St. Alban & St. Stephen who provide a certificate of baptism or whose minister supplies a supporting letter confirming membership of the Church or faith community.

14. Any other children."

I'm not sure i'd want to send my child to a church school or catholic school were i an atheist which brings us to the question of how come schools are oversubscribed. Lack of provision perhaps?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I hope Conservative Party Central Office pay you well.

I think Rishi has learnt well from generations of his solidly professional middle class family that advantage begets advantage.

It's a good background to learn certain useful qualities such as hard work, aspiration, sacrifice. I don't know if being solidly middle class, once you leave your family and emigrate to a new country with little money, gives you much of an advantage other than educated parents and the prior experience in interacting with other middle class people . As far as I can tell a middle class background in Sunak's grandmother's case meant she most went to school in rural Tanzania until she was 16, when she got married to a railway engineer and was given some jewellery. Having the grit to sell her jewellery and take a risk and emigrate to the UK by herself with very little money and get a job as a bookkeeper in Leicester and progress and send for her husband and children may have been nature rather than nurture. 

Sunak's parents got professional qualifications and worked in a profession and started their own business. It doesn't mean they didn't have to work really long hours to feed their family and put a roof over their heads and give their children a good education. Nor does it mean they didn't sacrifice in order to pay for a private school education. All of these achievements involve hard work. Their advantage was that they had the vision to see that sacrifice and prioritising and hard work would lead to a better future and are good qualities to inculcate in your children. I don't see anything wrong with an MP highlighting that this is the background he comes from - a background of aspiration, hard work, education, sacrifice.

Put to good use, I gather. I gather that the rumours about the recent Emergency Alert sent to phone users on Sunday being linked to Akshata Murty's Infosys are not true. However the policy in the budget to provide direct funding to just six private childminding agencies is true - as is the fact that Akshata Murty is a major shareholder in one of those companies that will benefit - Koru Kids.

Seems to be a minority shareholder in Koru - 20,000 shares but yes Sunak should have mentioned it to the Parliamentary Committee  when asked about his interests in childcare, rather than just relying on having written to the Cabinet Office to declare it. It doesn't take anything away from the hard work and achievements of his parents though.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Says the person who spends half his/her time here trying to cast doubt on Prof Davey's professional qualifications, and most of the rest arguing the toss over faulty, or at least tertiary, definitions of words, long after they have been shown to contradict themselves or to be totally in the wrong.

Incorrect - if you count the number of posts I have made or the number of words in all those posts, a lot less than half of them are concerned with PD's qualifications.

You seem to have quite an obsession with presenting yourself as always being in the right. Such people can be very forceful members of society - they can also be very dangerous, especially if male (A.E. van Vogt, of all people was the first the really draw attention to the phenomenon, and wrote an interesting monograph on it). But your personality would probably have been of greater interest to Alfred Adler......

That could be a very accurate assessment of PD and BHS.

By the way, hope you took note of me admitting I made a mistake by putting QC instead of KC after my name. Or were you too busy obsessing about scoring points and being right?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure i'd want to send my child to a church school or catholic school were i an atheist which brings us to the question of how come schools are oversubscribed.

Good question - actually they aren't. There is a big hoary old myth that faith schools are super-popular, when there doesn't seem to be any credible evidence to back this up.

As I am a school Trustee I get easy access to all the application stats in my local area. Actually anyone can get them if they spend a bit of time digging around on the County Council website, but I get them direct. Each year, for a number of years, I've kept a running tally, not least because the school where I'm a trustees has, for a number of years been the most oversubscribed in the District (actually I think in the County). It is a non selective, comprehensive, mixed, non-faith school without any weird 'attributes' admissions criteria, just good old fashioned distance.

For secondary schools (that's my school) there are nine in the area - six non-faith and three faith. When you rank them by oversubscription (in other words number of applications/number of places), they divide perfectly. The top six most oversubscribed are all the non-faith schools, the bottom three are the faith schools. In fact for in the most recent year non-faith schools averaged over 4 applications per place, compared to just 2.5 for the faith schools, so not a small difference.

And the distinction is just as stark at primary level - of the 23 primary schools in the District the top 13 for oversubscription are all non-faith and of the five faith schools, four are in the bottom six.

Lack of provision perhaps?

Nope - over provision and discriminatory and inefficient as many faith schools are smaller and require greater funding per pupil to be viable.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I sometimes wonder whether you actually bother to read what you post.

The very first words of the article are:

"Supernatural refers to phenomena or entities that are beyond the laws of nature."

This is pretty well word for word the definition that BHS and I have been using. Yet you continue to try to argue that supernatural is something to do with what is currently not known by science etc. If you are going to link to an article, at least you might want to check that it supports your argument rather than unequivocally confirming the point that others are making against you.

I sometimes wonder whether you bother to read beyond the first line of a link before you comment. You could for example try clicking on the link in the 1st line in "laws of nature" , which takes you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

You could try reading the whole of the 1st paragraph including "Though the corollary term "nature", has had multiple meanings since the ancient world, the term "supernatural" emerged in the Middle Ages[2] and did not exist in the ancient world."