Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    That is simply wrong, How stupid are you? As thick as Corbyn or something???
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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?)
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    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?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You were comparing UCL to Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY).
    Neither are/were de jure universities. They are/were both de facto universities.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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?
    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?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Do you now withdraw your concession that Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) was not a de jure university? Yes or no? Well do you?
    Neither UCL nor Mason College are/were de jure universities. They are/were de facto universities.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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?
    No. Why is it important?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Can you research it as badly as you did Prime Minister? Shall I tell you?

    Zero.
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    x
    And let's just repeat this unanswered post for the sake of to adding to your state of foolishness (which you seem to relish). Now don't run away like you love to do when you're cornered.

    So since you don't accept Edinburgh as a redbrick (fair enough) how do you now reconcile your claim that Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet is "is almost exclusively red brick, not Oxbridge"?, when in fact there are more Oxbridge graduates than redbrick graduates (10 of the former, 7 of the latter)? Claims of rhetorical exaggeration doesn't fit here sorry.

    In addition, how do you reconcile your claim that Corbyn is dumbing down the Labour Party as reflected by the Oxbridge makeup of the shadow cabinet, when in actual fact his shadow cabinet has 10 Oxbridge graduates, and his predecessor's shadow cabinet (Ed Milliband) had 11 Oxbridge graduates?

    And how also do you reconcile the title of your thread, claiming Corbyn purged the shadow Cabinet of Oxbridge graduates, when in actual fact, whilst the number of Oxbridge graduates has stayed roughly the same, the ones who were "purged" (Tristram Hunt, Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, Chukka Umunna, Ed Balls) all actually declined to serve in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn, or in the case of Ed, failed to retain their seat in the election?

    Could it just be the case, that you are a deceitful liar?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    oh my god guys

    it's funny how we condemn the media for personal attacks that don't contribute to anything of substance yet we're so quick to call one another deceitful liars etc. do we want to live in a world full of compassion and empathy or do we want to live in a world where everyone's out to get everyone else and there's no sanctuary, no sanity, not even in our own minds? let's rise above separation and segregation and actually start being kind. it's not hard. i recommend Russell Brand and Eckhart Tolle videos for context

    we're always protecting and defending ourselves and by ourselves i mean our egos. it's always 'he or she is a *****, he's wrong and i'm right. i'm absolutely correct and no one can ever change my mind. i'll defend my position to the very end'. the purpose of debate is to learn from one another. that means letting go of our preconceptions and being open to expanding our awareness of the world

    here's my forecast:

    there'll be a economic crash within the next few years, similar to 2008 but perhaps worse. everyone will blame the current government. the labour party will be voted in next election and Jeremy Corbyn will lead us into a new world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    Do you actually know what sociopathy is? Care to provide examples of this alleged sociopathy?

    You do realise that sociopaths are actually often very social and have a wide circle of acquaintances. Since you have made claims that I don't have a life, how do you reconcile this claim that I am not a sociopath? Or are you again so desperate to deflect from the debate that you just invent things about people again?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    This is exactly why alcohol is not sold to children.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    A couple of quick points since I am not going to get dragged into a point by point rebuttal yet again.
    You've never done a point by point rebuttal. That has been your style throughout. Run away from 90% of the debate and focus on aspects that are not important.

    You have failed on every count to defend your position. In fact you've failed on pretty much every measure of anything.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You statement that a Royal Charter has nothing to do with a institution being a university is yet another of your logical fallacies.
    No it's not. Having a Royal Charter does not confer the status of university. Just as a lack of it, does not confer the non-status of an institution. This has been laid out to you very simply, but you still don't seem to understand. I did suggest having it spelt out in colourful fridge magnet letters if it would help, and it becomes ever more apparent that this might be the case.

    UCL is not a de jure university. It has a Royal Charter

    Newcastle is a de jure university. It doesn't have a Royal Charter.

    These facts should be enough for even the most simple minded to understand. But instead you keep on bleating about Royal Charters long after it has been made clear to you their irrelevance to the discuss.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    AND you admit that Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) was never a de jure university, so case proven.
    Then we are back that UCL was never a de jure university.

    Both Mason College and UCL were/are de facto universities.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    HAHAHAHAHA

    First of all, students that completed their studies at Mason College were awarded a degree, thus conferring de facto university status. In fact the comparison is identical to UCL until 2008 since students having completed their studies were awarded a degree, by happy coincidence, the University of London.

    Second, the range of subjects a university offers does not confer whether it is a university or not. LSE only teaches social science, St George's University only teaches Medicine, and SOAS only teaches a narrow range of social science subjects. Mason College on the other hand taught Medicine, a whole range of natural and earth sciences, Maths, Literature, Engineering and foreign languages. All of which one obtained a degree in on completion of their studies.

    And finally, if you think it was merely a modern day technical college, why on earth would you find FRS lecturing there, as well as graduates who went onto be at the forefront of scientific discovering and in one case win a Nobel Prize

    By every measure, Mason College was a university, and firmly a redbrick at that.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Are you going to claim Corbyn went to "University" now?
    Would a student on completion of their studies at North London Polytechnic receive a degree? No. I think that's answers your question.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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).
    As I said, even if you were wrong, and evidence was shown to you, you wouldn't accept it.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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).
    I've never made that claim. Kindly quote me where I have said that.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Of course you are going to "run away" from further debate on this subject.
    This is one of your funniest lines yet, mainly because it demonstrates either your delusional state or degree of desperation

    Me: point by point refutation of every incorrect claim in every one of your posts

    You: refusing to respond to whole posts, and the posts you do respond to responding to a minority of the content, and even then you always fail and then run away.

    The person who runs away is on every occasion you. But of course you are going to start claiming how demanding and time consuming your social life is as an explanation for your shortcomings.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You know I will turn you round, bend you over, pull down your trousers and give you a good seeing to.
    I knew I was dealing with a lightweight when I saw your posts on this forum, but I didn't realise you were such a novice in debate. You do realise the joke about being ar*e raped has already been placed on you on this thread, and that your debating style looks even more desperate that you recycle what your opponent has already said about you. But like I said, it's a reflection of your novice status, and not withstanding the fact that by any objective measure you've been ar*e raped beyond recovery on this thread

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    It hurts too much. You are too big for my ar$e.. Owww owww owww. Stop, please stop!
    Somebody seems very insecure about the size. I guess you having a small one would explain a lot for the anger and over-compensation your so frequently demonstrate.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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!
    Enjoy. I understand a certain orifice of yours does need a rest, so no hard feelings from my side
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    x
    Here it is again for you

    So since you don't accept Edinburgh as a redbrick (fair enough) how do you now reconcile your claim that Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet is "is almost exclusively red brick, not Oxbridge"?, when in fact there are more Oxbridge graduates than redbrick graduates (10 of the former, 7 of the latter)? Claims of rhetorical exaggeration doesn't fit here sorry.

    In addition, how do you reconcile your claim that Corbyn is dumbing down the Labour Party as reflected by the Oxbridge makeup of the shadow cabinet, when in actual fact his shadow cabinet has 10 Oxbridge graduates, and his predecessor's shadow cabinet (Ed Milliband) had 11 Oxbridge graduates?

    And how also do you reconcile the title of your thread, claiming Corbyn purged the shadow Cabinet of Oxbridge graduates, when in actual fact, whilst the number of Oxbridge graduates has stayed roughly the same, the ones who were "purged" (Tristram Hunt, Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, Chukka Umunna, Ed Balls) all actually declined to serve in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn, or in the case of Ed, failed to retain their seat in the election?

    Could it just be the case, that you are a deceitful liar?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    x
    This is for you as well

    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    considering the Tories are almost exclusively Oxford grads, do we really want another party filled with non-red bricks? also "dumbed down" is pretty harsh dude. so if you don't go to oxford you're automatically unintelligent and therefore worthless? what cave did you crawl out from
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magic_is_might)
    considering the Tories are almost exclusively Oxford grads, do we really want another party filled with non-red bricks? also "dumbed down" is pretty harsh dude. so if you don't go to oxford you're automatically unintelligent and therefore worthless? what cave did you crawl out from
    As per bold, I have been wondering the same thing about the OP.

    But I think it has to be reiterated that it doesn't matter which university someone has been to, they should be judged on their own merit and achievements. We don't need "less Oxbridge", or "more redbrick", we just need more capable and responsible leaders.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    As per bold, I have been wondering the same thing about the OP.

    But I think it has to be reiterated that it doesn't matter which university someone has been to, they should be judged on their own merit and achievements. We don't need "less Oxbridge", or "more redbrick", we just need more capable and responsible leaders.
    exactly. if we were going to judge people based on education and schooling alone why shouldn't we also look at their high school, primary school and even nursery?! Corbyn attended both an independent school as well as a grammar school - does this not affect whether he is or is not a "dumb" member of Labour?

    message to the creator of this dumb thread: if you're so anti-left why would you create this thread that would inevitably enrage Corbynites? are you a masochist?

    (article by Owen Jones
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-hunt-Oxbridge )
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magic_is_might)
    exactly. if we were going to judge people based on education and schooling alone why shouldn't we also look at their high school, primary school and even nursery?! Corbyn attended both an independent school as well as a grammar school - does this not affect whether he is or is not a "dumb" member of Labour?

    message to the creator of this dumb thread: if you're so anti-left why would you create this thread that would inevitably enrage Corbynites? are you a masochist?

    (article by Owen Jones
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-hunt-Oxbridge )
    ooh i love Owen Jones i'm seeing him on dec 9th at the guardian event. is anyone else going?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    x
    (Original post by magic_is_might)
    exactly. if we were going to judge people based on education and schooling alone why shouldn't we also look at their high school, primary school and even nursery?! Corbyn attended both an independent school as well as a grammar school - does this not affect whether he is or is not a "dumb" member of Labour?

    message to the creator of this dumb thread: if you're so anti-left why would you create this thread that would inevitably enrage Corbynites? are you a masochist?
    The issue is not so much that the OP would know that the subject would get a rise out of people who identify as left-wing, it's more the case that the OP's original posts are riddled with complete lies that the OP has failed to address

    1. He claims Corbyn's new shadow cabinet has been purged of Oxbridge graduates. In fact 4 Oxbridge former shadow cabinet members refused to serve under Corbyn (Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, Tristram Hunt and Chukka Umunna). They were not purged, they chose not to be a part of it. So he's telling a big fat lie

    2. He claims that Corbyn's new shadow cabinet is almost exclusively redbrick, not Oxbridge. In fact, by his own definition of redbrick, there are only 5 redbrick graduates, and 10 Oxbridge. So he is telling another a big fat lie

    3 He claims that Corbyn's new shadow cabinet is dumbed down because the direction Corbyn is taking it is to reduce Oxbridge graduates. In actual fact the previous Labour shadow cabinet of Ed Miliband had 11 Oxbridge graduates against Corbyn's 10, which all people would accept is equivalent. So he is telling yet another big fat lie.

    He's been called up on it many times, but runs away every time.

    Given he is an avid UKIP supporter, it is telling of UKIP politics: make up stuff to try and smear, appeal to prejudices and divide, but then run away when the lies, prejudice and malicious intention is exposed.

    (Original post by magic_is_might)
    (article by Owen Jones
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-hunt-Oxbridge )
    I am not left-wing, and I won't be voting for Corbyn (I believe he would be damaging for the country), and have never voted Labour anyway. However I respect the fact he is a man of principle, is up front about what he believes, and sticks to his word. If people are going to pull punches on him, they should be about real issues, not made up lies that are just naked smearing and appeals to prejudice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)

    By every measure, Mason College was a university, and firmly a redbrick at that.


    Your argument (if one can call it that) is anachronistic and facile.

    In the nineteenth century Royal Charters were a key factor in de jure recognition of a University, and in the case of Durham and UCL and KCL the key ones. They date their histories, proper, from their granting.

    As do all the original redbricks. That is a fact, inconvenient for you I know, but a fact all the same.

    But this somewhat primitive system needed to be overhauled. Legislation was also required to make English universities subsequent to Oxbridge, Durham and London. .

    And the ironic fact, for you, is that, Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) was the cause of that legislation, it was framed with it in mind. The Universities College Act of 1898 (well AFTER Chamberlain attended btw).

    You are wrong (once again), when you say that Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) had degree awarding powers when a University College, and used this as the linchpin of your entire argument.

    From the Wikipedia page on the subject:

    "In 1898 it became Mason University College, with Joseph Chamberlain becoming the President of Court of Governors of the college. In 1900 it was incorporated into the University of Birmingham.[6] Students at the College were awarded their degrees by the University of London until the University of Birmingham was established and received degree awarding powers in its own right."

    Were you ignorant of this or lying? Clearly you can't have been ignorant because you accessed this very page to raise other matters, so you must have been lying.

    Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) had no Royal Charter (required until then for de jure recognition as a university but not in later years) and no degree awarding powers.

    That is why you won't find it in this list of UK universities by date of foundation. . (As we know Wiki is the universal arbiter in all internet debates! )

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._of_foundation

    I hope that lube worked, but from your whelps of pain as I speared you, I fear not! Next you are are going to turn around, get on your knees and open your mouth.

    I am going to be off to Malaysia for twelve days and won't be accessing this website for that period. (I am just about to consider whether or not you are a sociopath but will then sign off).

    But I'll be back, so make sure you respond.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Do you actually know what sociopathy is? Care to provide examples of this alleged sociopathy?

    You do realise that sociopaths are actually often very social and have a wide circle of acquaintances. Since you have made claims that I don't have a life, how do you reconcile this claim that I am not a sociopath?
    There are two issues here. The fact that you are a Billy No Mates, and your possible sociopathy.

    That you ARE a Billy No Mates is evident from the fact you spend your Saturday evenings on here, responding to my posts at wearying length. (Talk about a complete waste of time, I don't even read half of the bondollocks you write, life's too short!)

    So we don't need to discuss your Billy No Matehood. You know you are, I know you are, and you know I know you are.

    But are you a sociopath? That I don't know for absolutely certain, but have my suspicions based on our many interactions on here.

    In your statement above you say that sociopaths are "often very social and have a wide circle of acquaintances."

    That is true, but they don't have friends. They don't have "mates." Because they are incapable of true friendship, of empathy. They can't relate to people in a "normal" (a value loaded term obviously) way. This wide circle of acquaintances are to be manipulated, used, made victims of.

    Hervey Cleckley came up with 16 key traits:
    • Superficial charm and good intelligence
    • Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
    • Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations
    • Unreliability
    • Untruthfulness and insincerity
    • Lack of remorse and shame
    • Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
    • Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
    • Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
    • General poverty in major affective reactions
    • Specific loss of insight
    • Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
    • Fantastic and uninviting behavior with alcohol and sometimes without
    • Suicide threats rarely carried out
    • Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated
    • Failure to follow any life plan
    Now we can debate whether they are actually all valid, (why do you need good intelligence to have a psychological condition for example? it seems doubtful) but unless you have a less crude list (and if you have produce it, please) I am going to use it, pro tem.

    When I read your posts I see many of these traits. The untruthfulness and insincerity. The egocentricity, lack of remorse or shame.

    You call people "trash." You called me a "creature" (ie not exclusively a person), you indulge in sexual sadism.

    All indicate a worrying lack of human empathy, and an inability to form close friendships. A Billy No Mates, yes, and a sociopath.

    You aren't going to admit this publicly, obviously, maybe you can't admit it to yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Your argument (if one can call it that) is anachronistic and facile.

    In the nineteenth century Royal Charters were a key factor in de jure recognition of a University, and in the case of Durham and UCL and KCL the key ones. They date their histories, proper, from their granting.

    As do all the original redbricks. That is a fact, inconvenient for you I know, but a fact all the same.

    But this somewhat primitive system needed to be overhauled. Legislation was also required to make English universities subsequent to Oxbridge, Durham and London. .

    And the ironic fact, for you, is that, Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) was the cause of that legislation, it was framed with it in mind. The Universities College Act of 1898 (well AFTER Chamberlain attended btw).

    You are wrong (once again), when you say that Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) had degree awarding powers when a University College, and used this as the linchpin of your entire argument.

    From the Wikipedia page on the subject:

    "In 1898 it became Mason University College, with Joseph Chamberlain becoming the President of Court of Governors of the college. In 1900 it was incorporated into the University of Birmingham.[6] Students at the College were awarded their degrees by the University of London until the University of Birmingham was established and received degree awarding powers in its own right."

    Were you ignorant of this or lying? Clearly you can't have been ignorant because you accessed this very page to raise other matters, so you must have been lying.

    Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) had no Royal Charter (required until then for de jure recognition as a university but not in later years) and no degree awarding powers.

    That is why you won't find it in this list of UK universities by date of foundation. . (As we know Wiki is the universal arbiter in all internet debates! )

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._of_foundation

    I hope that lube worked, but from your whelps of pain as I speared you, I fear not! Next you are are going to turn around, get on your knees and open your mouth.

    I am going to be off to Malaysia for twelve days and won't be accessing this website for that period. (I am just about to consider whether or not you are a sociopath but will then sign off).

    But I'll be back, so make sure you respond.
    So basically, what you just wrote was just a rehash of what has already been completely refuted in my previous posts.

    It's not use just quoting the summary words of my post and then regurgitating the same thing over and over again. Go through my post point by point because everything in this latest post of yours has already been addressed and refuted. It really shows very weak debating on your part that you persistently fail to do this.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    A couple of quick points since I am not going to get dragged into a point by point rebuttal yet again.
    You've never done a point by point rebuttal. That has been your style throughout. Run away from 90% of the debate and focus on aspects that are not important.

    You have failed on every count to defend your position. In fact you've failed on pretty much every measure of anything.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You statement that a Royal Charter has nothing to do with a institution being a university is yet another of your logical fallacies.
    No it's not. Having a Royal Charter does not confer the status of university. Just as a lack of it, does not confer the non-status of an institution. This has been laid out to you very simply, but you still don't seem to understand. I did suggest having it spelt out in colourful fridge magnet letters if it would help, and it becomes ever more apparent that this might be the case.

    UCL is not a de jure university. It has a Royal Charter

    Newcastle is a de jure university. It doesn't have a Royal Charter.

    These facts should be enough for even the most simple minded to understand. But instead you keep on bleating about Royal Charters long after it has been made clear to you their irrelevance to the discuss.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    AND you admit that Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) was never a de jure university, so case proven.
    Then we are back that UCL was never a de jure university.

    Both Mason College and UCL were/are de facto universities.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    HAHAHAHAHA

    First of all, students that completed their studies at Mason College were awarded a degree, thus conferring de facto university status. In fact the comparison is identical to UCL until 2008 since students having completed their studies were awarded a degree, by happy coincidence, the University of London.

    Second, the range of subjects a university offers does not confer whether it is a university or not. LSE only teaches social science, St George's University only teaches Medicine, and SOAS only teaches a narrow range of social science subjects. Mason College on the other hand taught Medicine, a whole range of natural and earth sciences, Maths, Literature, Engineering and foreign languages. All of which one obtained a degree in on completion of their studies.

    And finally, if you think it was merely a modern day technical college, why on earth would you find FRS lecturing there, as well as graduates who went onto be at the forefront of scientific discovering and in one case win a Nobel Prize

    By every measure, Mason College was a university, and firmly a redbrick at that.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Are you going to claim Corbyn went to "University" now?
    Would a student on completion of their studies at North London Polytechnic receive a degree? No. I think that's answers your question.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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).
    I've never made that claim. Kindly quote me where I have said that.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Of course you are going to "run away" from further debate on this subject.
    This is one of your funniest lines yet, mainly because it demonstrates either your delusional state or degree of desperation

    Me: point by point refutation of every incorrect claim in every one of your posts

    You: refusing to respond to whole posts, and the posts you do respond to responding to a minority of the content, and even then you always fail and then run away.

    The person who runs away is on every occasion you. But of course you are going to start claiming how demanding and time consuming your social life is as an explanation for your shortcomings.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    There are two issues here. The fact that you are a Billy No Mates, and your possible sociopathy.
    And again, your status as a weak debater reveals itself in full glory.

    Having failed to defend your position on this thread, having had everything you write refuted, having had all your feeble attempts at deflection refuted, you fall back on the usual baseless ad hominems.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    That you ARE a Billy No Mates is evident from the fact you spend your Saturday evenings on here, responding to my posts at wearying length.
    I feel rather sorry for you that in your mind the only time people can spend with their friends is a Saturday evening. That must be very limiting for you indeed.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    (Talk about a complete waste of time, I don't even read half of the bondollocks you write, life's too short!)
    So you admit you are either a total lightweight or a troll.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    So we don't need to discuss your Billy No Matehood. You know you are, I know you are, and you know I know you are.
    Says the one who confines his concept of socialising to exclusively Saturday night. But then again, hypocrisy and limited self-awareness are your strong points.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    But are you a sociopath? That I don't know for absolutely certain, but have my suspicions based on our many interactions on here.
    This will be interesting, given your demonstrative poor perceptiveness and no record on psychological analysis.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    In your statement above you say that sociopaths are "often very social and have a wide circle of acquaintances."

    That is true, but they don't have friends. They don't have "mates." Because they are incapable of true friendship, of empathy. They can't relate to people in a "normal" (a value loaded term obviously) way. This wide circle of acquaintances are to be manipulated, used, made victims of.
    And yet you continuously make claims that I don't have social interactions. So again you are contradicting yourself.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Hervey Cleckley came up with 16 key traits:
    • Superficial charm and good intelligence
    • Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
    • Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations
    • Unreliability
    • Untruthfulness and insincerity
    • Lack of remorse and shame
    • Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
    • Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
    • Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
    • General poverty in major affective reactions
    • Specific loss of insight
    • Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
    • Fantastic and uninviting behavior with alcohol and sometimes without
    • Suicide threats rarely carried out
    • Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated
    • Failure to follow any life plan


    Now we can debate whether they are actually all valid, (why do you need good intelligence to have a psychological condition for example? it seems doubtful) but unless you have a less crude list (and if you have produce it, please) I am going to use it, pro tem.
    And there we have it in the bold. You admit yourself that you don't understand psychology and the nuances of diagnosis, yet then go on to make a fool of yourself by wanting to play diagnoser.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    When I read your posts I see many of these traits. The untruthfulness and insincerity. The egocentricity, lack of remorse or shame.
    So you allege 3 of these traits, none of which have been demonstrated. Before getting to the point that you need to provide evidence for these traits, it should be pointed out to you (since you obviously are totally unaware of psychological diagnosis) that for you to make a diagnosis using such criteria, then you would need to be identifying evidence of the overwhelming majority of these traits. I appreciate numbers aren't your strong point (we established that on the first page of this thread), but being able to count and seeing 3 is not very much out of 16 would have helped you a bit here.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You call people "trash."
    Yep, in the context of applicants to medical school with woefully hopeless cases, they are referred to as trash because that is exactly where their application ends up.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You called me a "creature" (ie not exclusively a person)
    Oh boo hoo. I hope mummy was able to console you from what must have been very traumatic for you to be called that. The poor creature who not only requested an ar*e raping, but then went on to continue inviting it long after they had been reduced to a quivering head in the corner. Yes a very poor creature.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    , you indulge in sexual sadism.
    That's you, who wrote out their sexual fantasies in detail only a few posts back.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    All indicate a worrying lack of human empathy, and an inability to form close friendships.
    You clearly have no clue what empathy is. But then you clearly don't have a clue about very much

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    A Billy No Mates, yes, and a sociopath.

    You aren't going to admit this publicly, obviously, maybe you can't admit it to yourself.
    So this latest rant (and deflection) only reveals that you:
    -have no self-awareness
    -have no clue about psychological terms
    -about as hypocritical as it gets
    -are completely desperate to deflect from the debate by engaging in baseless ad hominems and avoiding addressing the points of debate.

    A truly weak debater if ever I saw one.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    We all know that Jezza scraped two E's in his A Levels and could only get into a Poly, but did you know that his support team is almost exclusively red brick, not Oxbridge?

    http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/l...intellectuals/

    Has Corbyn dumbed down the Labour Party in this (and other) ways?

    With all out problems, can Britain really risk electing a leader too stupid to even get into university with a Shadow Cabinet composed of graduates of second tier universities?
    Just because an MP has not been to university does not mean that they are dumb, especially since anyone can be self-taught or home-schooled. Much of the left-wing is very well-educated and/or well-read.
    Moreover, surely it is better to be more like the people ye represent and empathise and understand what they want and need than it is to be in the Westminster bubble, where politicians, news broadcasters and journalists form a 'political class' which is in a frenzied world of its own, divorced from the people, and which is turning away political participants by the million.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Just because an MP has not been to university does not mean that they are dumb, especially since anyone can be self-taught or home-schooled. Much of the left-wing is very well-educated and/or well-read.
    Moreover, surely it is better to be more like the people ye represent and empathise and understand what they want and need than it is to be in the Westminster bubble, where politicians, news broadcasters and journalists form a 'political class' which is in a frenzied world of its own, divorced from the people, and which is turning away political participants by the million.
    If you read through this thread you will find that the OP was torn to shreds in his desperate (but in vain) attempts to defend his indefensible position

    In summary;

    1. He claims Corbyn's new shadow cabinet has been purged of Oxbridge graduates. In fact 4 Oxbridge former shadow cabinet members refused to serve under Corbyn (Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, Tristram Hunt and Chukka Umunna). They were not purged, they chose not to be a part of it. So he's telling a big fat lie

    2. He claims that Corbyn's new shadow cabinet is almost exclusively redbrick, not Oxbridge. In fact, by his own definition of redbrick, there are only 5 redbrick graduates, and 10 Oxbridge. So he is telling another a big fat lie

    3 He claims that Corbyn's new shadow cabinet is dumbed down because the direction Corbyn is taking it is to reduce Oxbridge graduates. In actual fact the previous Labour shadow cabinet of Ed Miliband had 11 Oxbridge graduates against Corbyn's 10, which all people would accept is equivalent. So he is telling yet another big fat lie.

    He was called up on this many times, but ran away every time.

    Given he is an avid UKIP supporter, it is telling of UKIP politics: make up stuff to try and smear, appeal to prejudices and divide, but then run away when the lies, prejudice and malicious intention is exposed.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    3 He claims that Corbyn's new shadow cabinet is dumbed down because the direction Corbyn is taking it is to reduce Oxbridge graduates. In actual fact the previous Labour shadow cabinet of Ed Miliband had 11 Oxbridge graduates against Corbyn's 10, which all people would accept is equivalent. So he is telling yet another big fat lie.
    Congratulations on making something equivalent to nothing :rolleyes:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 4, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.