Has Corbyn dumbed down the Labour Party by purging Oxbridge grads?

Read my lips: MASON COLLEGE WAS NOT A UNIVERSITY.

What it grew into, however was:

"The University grew out of the radical vision of our first Chancellor, Joseph Chamberlain. Founded in 1900, Birmingham represented a new model for higher education. This was England’s first civic university, where students from all religions and backgrounds were accepted on an equal basis.Birmingham has continued to be a university unafraid to do things a little differently, and in response to the challenges of the day. It was a founder member of the National Union of Students and the first university in the country to:The University of Birmingham was established by Queen Victoria by Royal Charter in 1900 and was the UK’s first civic or 'redbrick' university. The first phase of building work on the campus was completed in 1909 under the auspices of the esteemed architect Sir Aston Webb. We celebrated the centenary of those buildings in July 2009."

Now tell me, when did Chamberlain and Baldwin attend Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY)? Before 1900, perchance?

What did they study and how long did they spend there? Do you even know?

I don't believe you about Baldwin, based on previous experience on this thread. Your omission was a deliberate lie.

Do you believe UCL is not a university?

False comparison.

Darling, you were given the option to clarify the reasoning for labelling Corbyn stupid, and you threw your toys out of the pram.

So it was only natural that I take as read what you wrote that this alleged stupidity by Corbyn was down to political ineptitude. Now you set your pram on fire and say this isn't the case at all.

If you now want to switch your position, and say to disregard the importance of remembrance is stupid in itself, then you are in no better position. There could be many valid reasons to disregard the importance of remembrance, since after all you said yourself, it's importance is purely down to emotional feelings people hold, and where the money spend and the focus of the nation's attention could be used for more tangible things or working towards the future. I personally don't take this almost philistinic view, but it is a view I can understand some people may hold if they value the tangible highly or hold antagonist views to war, particularly that war. To denote somebody as stupid because they have different opinions to you is a reflection of immaturity at best.

There have been no traps set for you, only holes you dig yourself, and keep digging long after people have stopped laughing at you.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

That was the surrender flag going up.

No yet another logical fallacy on your part!

You can't compare modern UCL with Mason College. They are apples and oranges. One is an apple, a university. UCL. The other Mason College was (NOT A UNIVERSITY) an orange.

What did Chamberlain and Baldwin study and for how long? Do you know?

You have a look at that and get back to me. And I might be willing to resume the debate, or I might not.

It is fun having you spend ages researching a writing a post only to have it contemptuously not even read!

Both universities colleges. Both effectively operating as independent universities.

No, it was a false comparison, UCL got a Royal Charter in 1836. A more valid comparison would be with Queens College Birmingham which got a Royal Charter in the 1840's.

Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) never got a Royal Charter.

Unless you know better maybe? Can you demonstrate that Mason College ever got a Royal Charter?

Be my guest. Until you do, the comparison is proved to be false.

My contention is established. No red brick university, currently existing, can claim a British Prime Minister.

Mason College is not just not a red brick university We know the first one was established in 1900, well after Chamberlain and Baldwin had left.

It also was NOT EVEN A UNIVERSITY.

Keep digging mate.



Mason College, and for much of it's history UCL, were not de jure universities. So unless you're going to deny UCL the status, then your bleating about Mason College doesn't get your anywhere

It is you who are digging "mate."

I have already demonstrated that UCL is not a valid comparison with Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY).

UCL got a Royal Charter in 1836. (KCL was earlier in 1829). The University of London got a Royal Charter as well on the same day as UCL in 1836. Go and check.

And Royal Charters are important. All the red bricks got them, and date their existence as universities from that date, as does Durham.

https://www.dur.ac.uk/about/governance/charter/

So forget about UCL it isn't a valid comparison. It got a Royal Charter.

Mason College never got a Royal Charter. You admit it in your weasel words that it was "not a de jure university." You hoist the white flag of surrender with that comment.

Birmingham University got a Royal Charter in 1900 and then became a University. The first "red brick."

So I'll say it again. Mason College, the only evidence you have found for a Prime Ministerial "university" education (in one case involving a Cambridge graduate who spent only a few months there btw!) since Robert Peel that was not at Oxbridge, Edinburgh (which you admit is not red brick) or nowhere was

NOT A UNIVERSITY.

NOT RED BRICK because they hadn't even been invented.

Tomorrow, after you have responded to this, we are going to take the next step in this matter.

x

Oh dear, it seems the digging just doesn't stop

You do realise that having a Royal Charter has nothing to do whether an institution is a university or not?

That is simply wrong, How stupid are you? As thick as Corbyn or something???

If it has nothing to do with "whether an institution is a university or not", why does Durham claim its foundation date from the granting of its Royal Charter? Why do all the Red Bricks (including Birmingham the very "University" in question?)

I keep saying you aren't great at logic, that you make logical fallacies, time after time after time. That comment,which I have just proven to be incorrect shows this failure of your mind, of your intellect for the whole thread to see.

You were comparing UCL to Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY).

I demonstrated that this was a false comparison because UCL was granted a Royal Charter which Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) never received. Unlike UCL. Are you able to grasp the difference or are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself arguing an indefensible position?

Do you now withdraw your concession that Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) was not a de jure university? Yes or no? Well do you?

If you don't, and it wasn't a de jure university, (let alone a red brick since they weren't even invented then) how does the presence of Chamberlain for a short while at Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) thus invalidate my statement that there have been no red brick university graduates as PM's?

I have demonstrated my statement was correct to everyone except a cretin like you. Now answer this, Einstein,. The PM is First Lord of the Treasury and Primus inter Pares. How many red brick gradates have been Second Lord of the Treasury? The second man in the government? Let's say since Gladstone basically invented the role?

Do you know?

Can you research it as badly as you did Prime Minister? Shall I tell you?

Zero.

x

Am wondering if the toy throwing and huffiness is down to lack of natural sunlight or sheer tiredness from digging the hole as deep as you have done.



No it has nothing to with whether an institution is a university or not, since there are many universities who do not have a Royal Charter, Newcastle University and LSE just to name two.

Therefore saying (or in your case screaming) that Mason College didn't have a Royal Charter and was therefore not a university just shows lack of insight into the subject on your part.

In spite of being told this, you then spend almost all of your post screaming about Royal Charters knowing they they are irrelevant to the assessment of Mason College's university status. But you seem to show a lack of insight into most things, so that is hardly surprising.



I think somebody has got very hot and bothered and needs to lie down. Maybe it's time for your feed? Or maybe you nap? Nappy needs changing?



Neither are/were de jure universities. They are/were both de facto universities.



As has been demonstrated to you, the existence of a Royal Charter is irrelevant. UCL has one, Mason College didn't, neither de jure univerities, both de facto universities. Likewise Newcastle University doesn't have a Royal Charter and is a de jure university.

Now do you see that this screaming about Royal Charters just makes you look silly? Or do you still not get it, and need it spelt out to you letter by letter in pretty coloured fridge magnet letters?



Neither UCL nor Mason College are/were de jure universities. They are/were de facto universities.



Because it was a de facto university (in the same way that UCL is a de facto university). It was very much a redbrick university.

I find it funny that you are now narrowing your definition of a redbrick university to such an extent that you end up shooting yourself in the foot. You see, your (incorrect) claim that there hasn't been a redbrick Prime Minister since Peel (1834) is quite ridiculous by your own rigid use of the understanding of a redbrick. What you are now saying is that redbricks did not exist until 1900, and with the average age of going to university at 20 and average age of becoming Prime Minister approximately 65, you wouldn't even be expecting to see redbrick Prime Ministers until 1945 at the absolute earliest.

So what exactly was the point of your question in the first place if you are just going to then turn around and shoot yourself by saying a redbrick is only an institution as per rigid definition (which confines you to seven universities) that couldn't have even produced a Prime Minister until at least 110 years after the start of your reference period?

And we both know the answer. It's rooted in the mistake you have made (and not learnt from) a number of a times on this forum; that is, when you say 'redbrick', you mean 'non-Oxbridge'. That is what got you into this mess in the first place with your original post on the thread, and this is what keeps you in a mess on this side topic. The problem is that you are too proud and arrogant to admit you made a mistake, and so you end up providing a huge amount of entertainment in your wriggling and writhing about all over the place trying to avoid admitting you were wrong. We see you running away from core issues of the debate, instead latching onto irrelevant side topics that are of next to no importance in the hope that people won't notice. We see you lying. We see you deflecting why bringing totally off topic points. Whilst it's quite sad to see a creature suffering in the way that you are, it's truly fascinating to observe the same creature persistently pouring petrol on his own fire-bed.



No. Why is it important?



Don't worry, I won't research. Even if your claim turns out to be incorrect (as so many of them are), you will refuse to allow anyone to correct you, as we have vividly seen in the latest turn of this thread

Yet another long evening post showing you really do need to get a life. Admittedly it wasn't a Saturday like last time. I suppose one shouldn't be surprised, you show strong evidence of sociopathy in many things you say.

For my part I wrote having come back after having a few bevs. I did wonder if it might have led me to going a bit OTT. But reading back my words I don't withdraw a single full stop. In vino veritas.

A couple of quick points since I am not going to get dragged into a point by point rebuttal yet again.

You statement that a Royal Charter has nothing to do with a institution being a university is yet another of your logical fallacies.

AND you admit that Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) was never a de jure university, so case proven.

Actually it was a technical college offering a very narrow range of vocational not academic courses. The closest comparison is to the post war Polytechnics. (One of which Corbyn himself dropped out from!) These have mostly since become both de facto and de jure "universities" although some might say most are not worthy of the title in its true sense.

Are you going to claim Corbyn went to "University" now?

No of course you are not going to research my claim that not a single PM or Chancellor is a graduate of a red brick university. (Or of any university apart from Oxbridge or in a handful of cases the ancient Scottish universities and in one case UCL).

You claim that Oxbridge is not relevant in the education of our most powerful men and women, and yet nearly 70% of Chancellors and PM's went there in almost the last two hundred years. (More if you go further back).

Of course you are going to "run away" from further debate on this subject.

You know I will turn you round, bend you over, pull down your trousers and give you a good seeing to.

It hurts too much. You are too big for my ar$e.. Owww owww owww. Stop, please stop!

Anyway I am going away for a few days, but will be back on this thread next week. Better head off to Boots for some lube in readiness!

x