That's not the reason why we marched into Iraq though, was it? It wasn't terrorism that time, it was nukes. Yet another thing to get hysterical about.

Reply 64

felamaslen

Original post by Chlorophile

That's not the reason why we marched into Iraq though, was it? It wasn't terrorism that time, it was nukes. Yet another thing to get hysterical about.

No but the West had a moral right to get rid of Saddam Hussein, since that dictator had no right to rule any country. Forget about nukes or "official reasons", that's just international diplomacy (because apparently nation states have an official right to exist under international law, whether or not they are ruled with an iron fist).

Reply 65

Chlorophile

Original post by felamaslen

This is the problem though. If it was about morality and if there were a genuine effort to solve these problems and lift people out of these situations then I'd say, sure, it'd be nicer if we didn't have to interfere but it's acceptable in this case. But it's never about that, it's about money and politics. No government has ever made a serious attempt to solve the crisis in the Middle East, unless it's about saving Israel, the West's little bastion of obedience over there. If you start getting militarily involved in something and humanitarian goals are not your primary aim, bad things are going to happen. And surprise surprise, they have.

Reply 66

Puddles the Monkey

Original post by felamaslen

Saddam Hussein needed to be got rid of, though removing him may have been a bad idea for pragmatic reasons.

Original post by Chlorophile

Who caused all of the trouble in Iraq in the first place?

Hey guys,

I know conversation moves along naturally, but this seems to be derailing the thread somewhat :ninja:

So it's probably best ot make a new thread for this discussion. :redface:

Reply 67

al_94

So called "Islamic Extremism" is a myth. You're nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist (In the USA at least). I think people need to stop being ignorant and actually look at the statistics.
[h="1"]

Reply 68

mimilovell

Forget looking for the boggy man in a child, teachers should focus on bringing up the child right. Only with educated the futher generation, we can conbat any brain washing. Why? Because they will be able to think for themself.

Reply 69

Messiah Complex

Yes they should. Its a massive safeguarding issue. A lot of these children are also children who get beat by their parents and face other horrific things at home. To those who oppose, are you suggesting we just turn a blind eye to the possible radicalisation of todays youth?

"If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people." - Confucius

If you allow the young people to be taught by radicals then in the end what you get is a generation where a lot of people who have been taught that way think its acceptable. I hate the government but its nice that they're finally talking sense on this.

Reply 70

Messiah Complex

Original post by Lady Comstock

If young children come out with extreme language, whether it be religious fanaticism or racism, I do not think it should just be ignored.

With extremism a growing problem in young people, I think it would be irresponsible for the government not to try and prevent it at a younger age. Toddlers spouting extremism, which they have learnt at home or in religious premises, could turn into the teenagers who go off and fight for ISIS. In addition, do we really want to avoid stopping our young people from being indoctrinated in religious extremism? How would that benefit society or create the sort of adults that we want in our society?

The government should be careful in how it reacts to extreme language, i.e. not being too heavy handed, but to say nothing should be done is negligent and irresponsible in my opinion.

Spot on.

Original post by Chlorophile

They couldn't have sounded more police state if they tried. This instance is obviously absurdly over the top but it's representative of the wider trend of using of terrorism as an excuse to exert control over the public.

Original post by Chlorophile

Firstly, there's aren't.

Secondly, there aren't.

You're getting worried about a fabricated crisis. I don't understand why people are getting so upset about this and I don't understand what's wrong with the regulations that are already in place. There's way too many silly legal frameworks in the teaching profession as it is. Let teachers to their jobs - I'd be much happier to trust teachers to make the right judgement in situations like these than politicians.

What utter dribble on both counts. Yes, let us do our jobs, and you focus on your work. Its a massive safe guarding issue and a possible risk to the child's overall welfare. Stop pretending you have a clue about a profession you've never been a part of.

Reply 71

Chlorophile

Original post by Messiah Complex

I come from a family of teachers so I actually do know what I'm talking about. If you genuinely think that radicalising toddlers is an issue, I think you're the one who doesn't.

Reply 72

Messiah Complex

Original post by Chlorophile

First of all, supply teachers are not teachers. Secondly, that's a problem with the professionalism of supply teachers (which is very different from the professionalism of teachers) and it really doesn't have a lot to do with this bill in parliament.

Supply teachers are teachers. The clue is in the name 'supply TEACHERS'.

The difference is they're employed on a different basis or through an agency. They're still teachers. Also, some of them are qualified and some of them aren't, just like other teachers in permanent positions.

Stop talking about a profession you know nothing about as if you actually know what you are talking about. You do not and the stuff you are coming out with is more damaging than good.

Original post by Chlorophile

I come from a family of teachers so I actually do know what I'm talking about. If you genuinely think that radicalising toddlers is an issue, I think you're the one who doesn't.

I couldn't care less what family you come from. I come from a family of dentists, doctors and so forth - doesn't mean I can give someone a filling, diagnose someone competently and know the ins and outs of the daily duties of both. There are plenty of teachers in my family too but that still didn't mean I knew the profession. You are deluded.

That is a world of difference to actually being in the profession. You haven't so stop pretending as if you know what you are on about. Nobody knows the ins and out of teaching until they have actually done the job. End of discussion. Even teaching assistants who work in the system and work with teachers do not know the rigorous ins and outs of teaching because there will be meetings they're not allowed to attend, CPD they do not undertake etc. Stop talking nonsense.

If anyone needed any more proof that you haven't a clue what you're on about, its all above. Supply teachers aren't teachers you claim. Hilarious. Delusions of grandeur.

Face it, you tried to politicise the issue and claim 'teachers know best about teaching' and whilst thats true, teachers also need support. If there is no legislation to cover teachers and a teacher reports little Muhammad for saying 'kill infidels' in class randomly then the school isn't protected and cries of racism will fly everywhere. That is a fact so the schools and teachers need legislative protection to ensure that any serious complaints they have are covered legally. The child may not have a clue what they're actually saying, they may simply be repeating words they have heard at home. Regardless, that brings into question the child's wellbeing in that environment and loads of potential problems. These often filter over into school and cause problems when there are things going on at home.

Reply 73

Messiah Complex

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

Hey guys,

I know conversation moves along naturally, but this seems to be derailing the thread somewhat :ninja:

So it's probably best ot make a new thread for this discussion. :redface:

Can you ask Chlorophile to stop making wrongful claims or statements on here please? He doesn't actually have a clue what he is on about.

1. Supply teachers are teachers
2. He claims to know what teaching entails because he comes from a family of teachers when the truth is nobody knows the true rigours of the job until they've actually done it, just like any other profession out there

The misinformation will actually do more harm than good and i can't be bothered getting into a debate with someone any further who claims to know a profession they've never worked in. Its actually a laughable stance to take.

Reply 74

Chlorophile

Original post by Messiah Complex

Some supply teachers are teachers. Many supply teachers (which are probably the supply teachers people are having bad experiences with) are unqualified teachers. From a teaching careers website: "There are opportunities for... unqualified supply teachers... [who] must hold a degree or be working towards one, have ambitions to become a teacher and have voluntary or paid experience in secondary schools". I really don't want to perpetuate this argument but to claim that all supply teachers are teachers is just false.

I'm obviously not a teacher so I obviously do not have first hand experience of teaching, but coming from a family of teachers and having a lot of interest in the teaching profession, I know a lot about what the job entails. What you seem to be arguing is that it's impossible to have knowledge of something without being a professional in that area, which is just silly. I'm not a teacher but that doesn't mean it's impossible for me to have a decent understanding of what the job entails.

Reply 75

Messiah Complex

Original post by Chlorophile

A teacher is a teacher, qualified or unqualified. Not all supplies are qualified, this is correct. However, they're still teachers. The only difference between an unqualified supply teacher and unqualified teacher is the contract. If supply teachers weren't teachers they wouldn't be allowed to join teaching unions like NUT so again, stop talking complete nonsense.

I really find it difficult to understand how you come to this absurd conclusion. If you think unqualified teachers, which do exist on permanent contracts as well, aren't teachers, then sorry to burst your bubble but you're wrong. You do not need to become qualified to become a teacher. That is a fact. It is also something the government should change but as it stands an unqualified supply teacher is still a teacher.

I'm obviously not a teacher so I obviously do not have first hand experience of teaching, but coming from a family of teachers and having a lot of interest in the teaching profession, I know a lot about what the job entails. What you seem to be arguing is that it's impossible to have knowledge of something without being a professional in that area, which is just silly. I'm not a teacher but that doesn't mean it's impossible for me to have a decent understanding of what the job entails.

Well as someone who actually works in the profession I can assure you that you have no clue what you're talking about, just as I probably have very little clue about what you specialise in. That is just life.

Untitled drawing.jpg36.3KB

Reply 76

Chlorophile

Original post by Messiah Complex

Fine, maybe I wasn't precise enough. When I said "Teacher", I was referring to "Qualified Teachers" - which really ought to be the same thing in my view. I don't understand why you're getting so wound up about this, it's such a tiny little thing. If that's all you're basing your view of me "having no clue what I'm talking about", I think that's a bit sad. That's like me telling someone they don't understand anything about climate change because they mixed up precession and obliquity. I'm not an expert on the teaching profession but I'm not completely clueless which is what you seem to be making out (on the basis of me having said very little).

Reply 77

Messiah Complex

Original post by Chlorophile

Fine, maybe I wasn't precise enough. When I said "Teacher", I was referring to "Qualified Teachers" - which really ought to be the same thing in my view.

You weren't precise enough. You were wrong. If you are on about qualified teachers then yes, a lot of supply teachers are not qualified and are often career professionals with degrees who did it contractually. I agree, it should be the same thing and that ALL teachers should be qualified or at the least have 10 years in industry and sit a test to prove they have adequate subject knowledge. Having said that, this is not the case and as it stands I am correct in stating all supply teachers are teachers.

I don't understand why you're getting so wound up about this, it's such a tiny little thing.

I am not getting wound up. I am correcting the misinformation you were spouting in suggesting 'supply teachers aren't teachers' which is false. They are, as it currently stands. Its not a little thing when its false and could lead to people thinking incorrect things. If you were a teacher you'd understand that misinformation should not be spread.

There really is nothing more to say on it and the 'that is a bit sad' cheap shot is not going to work on me. I'm in my 20's and have no need to address such a trivial point. The point was, you made a misinformed statement and when I questioned it you went on the defensive as if you knew 100% what you were on about because your family are teachers. Well, thats great if they're teachers but that didn't back up or defend the statement you made at all.

I'm done. You've admitted that your initial statement was wrong and have now corrected it to qualified teachers, in which case it becomes correct.

Reply 78

yo radical one

Nurseries? :rofl:

4 year old Abdul is going to be sent to Guantanamo Bay for throwing a toy aeroplane at little Timmy's toy castle, obvious threat to repeat the attack of 9/11

Reply 79

Dexterous

Original post by yo radical one

Nurseries? :rofl:

4 year old Abdul is going to be sent to Guantanamo Bay for throwing a toy aeroplane at little Timmy's toy castle, obvious threat to repeat the attack of 9/11