Turn on thread page Beta

    On 06 Jun 2002 12:32:54 GMT, [email protected] (SLieber24) wrote:

    [q1]>One of the teachers at my school is![/q1]

    Is what...competent or moving to Scotland?

    Incidentally are teachers qualified in England therefore qualified to teach in Scotland? I
    understood that this was not the case.
    ******************************** ****
    **** http://user1951.tripod.com ****
    Information about films,
    Jack London, Lara Croft
    Shakespeare and ICT program of study
    last updated 30 05 2002

    On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:32:54 +0100, SLieber24 wrote:

    [q1]> In article <pan.2002.06.06.12.36.00.185531. [email protected]>, Ian <[email protected]> writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q3]>>> Well, I dunno. Would you rather have to satisfy 8 competencies or 56 competencies?[/q3]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>Who cares if you are basically competent - would you rather move to Scotland? ;-)[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q1]> One of the teachers at my school is![/q1]

    Good for her, when are you following ;-)

    Regards,

    --
    IanL

    On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 23:08:17 +0100, SLieber24 wrote:

    [q1]> In article <pan.2002.06.06.22.50.27.986022. [email protected]>, Ian <[email protected]> writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q3]>>> One of the teachers at my school is![/q3]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>Good for her, when are you following ;-)[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q1]> If I did, it'd be to the Orkney Islands. The Islands are gorgeous!![/q1]

    And a long way away! Still you could end up teachng sheep shearing. I have heard its very
    theraputic.

    Regards,
    --
    IanL

    "SLieber24" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]... In article
    <pan.2002.06.07.11.23.39.988788. [email protected]>, Ian <[email protected]> writes:

    [q2]>> If I did, it'd be to the Orkney Islands. The Islands are gorgeous!![/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>And a long way away! Still you could end up teachng sheep shearing. I have heard its very[/q1]
    [q1]>theraputic.[/q1]

    A cut above the rest of curriculum, surely...

    <ducks> They are plucked not shorn. <sheepish look>

    PJ

    "SLieber24" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> In article <[email protected] e.net>, [email protected][/q1]
    (User
    [q1]> 1951) writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >>One of the teachers at my school is![/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Is what...competent or moving to Scotland?[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Moving to Scotland.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >Incidentally are teachers qualified in England therefore qualified to teach in Scotland? I[/q2]
    [q2]> >understood that this was not the case.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> If you take the traditional route of B.Ed or PGCE, you do qualify.[/q1]
    Graduate
    [q1]> Teaching Program people don't.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> If you qualify in Scotland, you are automatically qualified in England,[/q1]
    though.
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> ----------------------------------------------------[/q1]
    [q1]> Sandi[/q1]

    Bear in mind that there is a General Teaching Council in Scotland, with which you must be registered
    and for which there is a compulsory fee deducted at source....

    John

    If the fee is compulsory, so that we can have our own professional body, then is it unreasonable to
    demand that all executive positions in GTC should be subject to democratic election - or do we
    prefer dictatorship?

    Clearly, if it is SUCH a good thing, and if it is for US, and if it is OUR body, the we - the
    teachers - should have the right to determine and develop its future for ourselves.

    It is fundamental in a democratic society that the majority of people who are represented in an
    organisation should have the right to elected representation in that organisation.

    So I propose that teachers should boycott GTC until and unless they are allowed to elect its
    leadership.

    (And of course, once the leadership is elected, the first thing it does is abolish membership fees
    or make membership voluntary!)

    beauty123

    [q1]>If the fee is compulsory, so that we can have our own professional body, then is it unreasonable to[/q1]
    [q1]>demand that all executive positions in GTC should be subject to democratic election - or do we[/q1]
    [q1]>prefer dictatorship?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Clearly, if it is SUCH a good thing, and if it is for US, and if it is OUR body, the we - the[/q1]
    [q1]>teachers - should have the right to determine and develop its future for ourselves.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>It is fundamental in a democratic society that the majority of people who are represented in an[/q1]
    [q1]>organisation should have the right to elected representation in that organisation.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>So I propose that teachers should boycott GTC until and unless they are allowed to elect its[/q1]
    [q1]>leadership.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>(And of course, once the leadership is elected, the first thing it does is abolish membership fees[/q1]
    [q1]>or make membership voluntary!)[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>beauty123[/q1]

    Darlin',

    Your government has already impressed us into this body, including forced payment.

    How can one boycott it when they've already taken our money and put us on their hit list?

    ----------------------------------------------------
    Sandi

    Remove NoSpam to reply.

    [q1]> How can one boycott it when they've already taken our money and put us on[/q1]
    their
    [q1]> hit list?[/q1]

    What I'm saying is that if you participate in an organisation that you've been forced to join, and
    where there isn't even democratic self-determination, then you are being demeaned.

    Freedom.

    Right to determine our futures democratically.

    I'll belong to a group or a union or a club because I CHOOSE.

    And if I belong to a group, I expect to have democratic rights within that group.

    This is all "top-down" dictatorship, not bottom-up democracy and self-determination.

    So yes, I will boycott this organisation and have nothing to do with it until it is truly
    democratic, and membership by choice.

    Beauty123

    Hi SLieber24,

    On 09 Jun 2002 20:51:07 GMT, in uk.education.teachers SLieber24 put fingers to keyboard and tapped
    away writing...

    Message ID:- <[email protected] b-fq.aol.com>

    [q2]> >> How can one boycott it when they've already taken our money and put us on[/q2]
    [q2]> >their[/q2]
    [q2]> >> hit list?[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >What I'm saying is that if you participate in an organisation that you've been forced to join,[/q2]
    [q2]> >and where there isn't even democratic self-determination, then you are being demeaned.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Freedom.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Right to determine our futures democratically.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >I'll belong to a group or a union or a club because I CHOOSE.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >And if I belong to a group, I expect to have democratic rights within that group.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >This is all "top-down" dictatorship, not bottom-up democracy and self-determination.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >So yes, I will boycott this organisation and have nothing to do with it until it is truly[/q2]
    [q2]> >democratic, and membership by choice.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Beauty123[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> How about a better idea - participate and be a real thorn in the side!![/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Sitting back and doing nothing permitted this organisation to be imposed. Dictatorships have a[/q1]
    [q1]> way of doing that to people who stay silent. Don't let Blair's dictatorship win - participate[/q1]
    [q1]> with a vengeance. Get on the council and veto everything! Do the opposite of whatever the[/q1]
    [q1]> government wants.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> This government wants you to be quiet and respectful - even to rubbishing in public those who[/q1]
    [q1]> point out its failings (see Byers, Stephen for reference). If you stay silent, they win...[/q1]

    Typical attitude from you, Sandi. How would you deal with a child who behaved in such an anti
    social manner?

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> ----------------------------------------------------[/q1]
    [q1]> Sandi[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Remove NoSpam to reply.[/q1]

    Best wishes, Ace

    ==============================

    Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
    full height. On, on, you noblest English.

    Hi SLieber24,

    On 10 Jun 2002 06:52:47 GMT, in uk.education.teachers SLieber24 put fingers to keyboard and tapped
    away writing...

    Message ID:- <[email protected] b-fd.aol.com>

    [q2]> >Typical attitude from you, Sandi. How would you deal with a child who behaved in such an anti[/q2]
    [q2]> >social manner?[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Addendum to the previous post:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Where I inherited a group of quiet, submissive pupils, I now have a group of thinkers and[/q1]
    [q1]> reasoners, who are not afraid to voice respectfully their own opinions on the running of the[/q1]
    [q1]> class and on the way I'm teaching. It's called "democracy" - something you have yet to[/q1]
    [q1]> experience, I'm sure.[/q1]

    I have no problems with children who respectfully voice their opinions.

    Indeed, I respectfully voiced my opinions to the Secretary of State and Carol Adams over my
    compulsory membership to the GTC. And I received a well thought out reply addressing my concerns,
    although not convincing me of the necessity of such a quango.

    However, your disrespectful attitude (which I note you censored from your reply) is: "participate
    with a vengeance", "veto everything" and "Do the opposite of whatever the government wants".

    So, do I take it that you'd have no problem with a child who behaves in the same way as you? Or if
    they feel they'd been treated unfairly, would you prefer they send you a respectful letter pointing
    out their grievances?

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> You would prefer your pupils to be sheep.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> ----------------------------------------------------[/q1]
    [q1]> Sandi[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Remove NoSpam to reply.[/q1]

    Best wishes, Ace

    ==============================

    Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
    full height. On, on, you noblest English.

    Hi SLieber24,

    On 10 Jun 2002 16:48:42 GMT, in uk.education.teachers SLieber24 put fingers to keyboard and tapped
    away writing...

    Message ID:- <[email protected] b-cp.aol.com>

    [q1]> In article <62l9gu87unhqbdf76u39a9smp7dfai3 [email protected]>, *Ace*[/q1]
    [q1]> <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >> Where I inherited a group of quiet, submissive pupils, I now have a group[/q2]
    [q2]> >of[/q2]
    [q2]> >> thinkers and reasoners, who are not afraid to voice respectfully their own opinions on the[/q2]
    [q2]> >> running of the class and on the way I'm teaching. It's[/q2]
    [q2]> >called[/q2]
    [q2]> >> "democracy" - something you have yet to experience, I'm sure.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >I have no problems with children who respectfully voice their opinions.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Indeed, I respectfully voiced my opinions to the Secretary of State and Carol Adams over my[/q2]
    [q2]> >compulsory membership to the GTC. And I received a well thought out reply addressing my concerns,[/q2]
    [q2]> >although not convincing me of the necessity of such a quango.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >However, your disrespectful attitude (which I note you censored from your reply) is: "participate[/q2]
    [q2]> >with a vengeance", "veto everything" and "Do the opposite of whatever the government wants".[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >So, do I take it that you'd have no problem with a child who behaves in the same way as you? Or[/q2]
    [q2]> >if they feel they'd been treated unfairly, would you prefer they send you a respectful letter[/q2]
    [q2]> >pointing out their grievances?[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Nope. Obviously, your letter and all those respectful voices (awfully quiet, weren't they?)[/q1]
    [q1]> haven't done a lot. So you work from within to change things.[/q1]

    The GTC haven't had a great deal of time to do anything very much. However, I'd like to think that
    at the very least my respectful letter helped to persuade the Secretary of State to pay teachers an
    amount extra roughly the same as we have to fork out to join this quango.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> So far, all they've done for your money is to try to drum out more teachers on questionable[/q1]
    [q1]> charges. Is that what you want to continue to happen?[/q1]

    Nope.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> So don't stay quiet and don't sit back as a non-participant. That, in effect, is appeasement.[/q1]
    [q1]> Don't appease the oppressors.[/q1]

    I never have and never will stay quiet on matters which I feel are important. However, neither will
    I "participate with a vengeance", "veto everything" or "Do the opposite of whatever the government
    wants". I may construct a well thought out letter, post it to the Secretary of State and copy it to
    my MP. That's how democracy should and usually does work in this country.

    The police get what they want, and you don't see them involved in noisy protest, just
    reasoned debate.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> ----------------------------------------------------[/q1]
    [q1]> Sandi[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Remove NoSpam to reply.[/q1]

    Best wishes, Ace

    ==============================

    Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
    full height. On, on, you noblest English.

    Hi SLieber24,

    On 10 Jun 2002 19:46:16 GMT, in uk.education.teachers SLieber24 put fingers to keyboard and tapped
    away writing...

    Message ID:- <[email protected] b-mi.aol.com>

    [q1]> In article <muo9gusst9nokh6u1b3co3o6omoa7qp [email protected]>, *Ace*[/q1]
    [q1]> <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >>[/q2]
    [q2]> >> So don't stay quiet and don't sit back as a non-participant. That, in[/q2]
    [q2]> >effect,[/q2]
    [q2]> >> is appeasement. Don't appease the oppressors.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >I never have and never will stay quiet on matters which I feel are important. However, neither[/q2]
    [q2]> >will I "participate with a vengeance", "veto everything" or "Do the opposite of whatever the[/q2]
    [q2]> >government wants". I may construct a well thought out letter, post it to the Secretary of State[/q2]
    [q2]> >and copy it to my MP. That's how democracy should and usually does work in this country.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Really? Interesting, since so far the people have lost on almost every occasion.[/q1]

    Errrm... Which election in the last 100 years have the people lost?

    If you are unhappy about particular issues then lobby your MP. It may not get you anywhere but your
    voice will be heard. And never forget, there are another 56,000,000 people in this country who have
    voices and opinions too.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >The police get what they want, and you don't see them involved in noisy protest, just reasoned[/q2]
    [q2]> >debate.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q1]> R-i-g-h-t....guess you missed the reports of threats of strike and other job action they[/q1]
    [q1]> threatened....[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> ----------------------------------------------------[/q1]
    [q1]> Sandi[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Remove NoSpam to reply.[/q1]

    Best wishes, Ace

    ==============================

    Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
    full height. On, on, you noblest English.

    SLieber24 <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> In article <n51aguoecsgil7r5sfrjr9nf59fb7jg [email protected]>, *Ace*[/q1]
    [q1]> <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >> Really? Interesting, since so far the people have lost on almost every occasion.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Errrm... Which election in the last 100 years have the people lost?[/q2]

    That's easy - US presidential, Nov 2000 (Surprised you couldn't answer this, Sandi)

    [q1]> After all, you can't even call an election to throw out your government.[/q1]

    My memory must be failing - remind us, Sandi, when the US electorate last threw out an incumbent
    president - obviously such an important democratic right will have been exercised frequently ;-)

    --
    Martin

    (remove barrier to reply)

    "martin" <[email protected] k> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> SLieber24 <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]
    [q1]> news:[email protected]...[/q1]
    [q2]> > In article <n51aguoecsgil7r5sfrjr9nf59fb7jg [email protected]>, *Ace*[/q2]
    [q2]> > <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> writes:[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q3]> > >> Really? Interesting, since so far the people have lost on almost[/q3]
    every
    [q3]> > >> occasion.[/q3]
    [q3]> > >[/q3]
    [q3]> > >[/q3]
    [q3]> > >Errrm... Which election in the last 100 years have the people[/q3]
    lost?
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> That's easy - US presidential, Nov 2000 (Surprised you couldn't answer this, Sandi)[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> > After all, you can't even call an election to throw out your government.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> My memory must be failing - remind us, Sandi, when the US electorate[/q1]
    last
    [q1]> threw out an incumbent president - obviously such an important[/q1]
    democratic
    [q1]> right will have been exercised frequently ;-)[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]

    Nixon jumped before he was pushed IIRC :-)

    --
    `p

    Hi SLieber24,

    On 10 Jun 2002 20:31:07 GMT, in uk.education.teachers SLieber24 put fingers to keyboard and tapped
    away writing...

    Message ID:- <[email protected] b-mi.aol.com>

    [q1]> In article <n51aguoecsgil7r5sfrjr9nf59fb7jg [email protected]>, *Ace*[/q1]
    [q1]> <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >> Really? Interesting, since so far the people have lost on almost every occasion.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Errrm... Which election in the last 100 years have the people lost?[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >If you are unhappy about particular issues then lobby your MP. It may not get you anywhere but[/q2]
    [q2]> >your voice will be heard. And never forget, there are another 56,000,000 people in this country[/q2]
    [q2]> >who have voices and opinions too.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> No it won't. After all, you can't even call an election to throw out your government. They know[/q1]
    [q1]> they've got the people by the balls and that's that. It's more a dictatorship than a[/q1]
    [q1]> constitutional monarchy (with no constitution, either).[/q1]

    What do you think a vote of no confidence is. And the Queen can call an election at any time - she
    is, after all, The Constitution. Certainly a more refined constitution than the fundamentally flawed
    US constitution, riddled with various ad-hoc amendments.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> ----------------------------------------------------[/q1]
    [q1]> Sandi[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Remove NoSpam to reply.[/q1]

    Best wishes, Ace

    ==============================

    Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
    full height. On, on, you noblest English.

    SLieber24 <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> In article <[email protected] uk>, "martin" <[email protected] k> writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> People have lost in more than that one, you know. You only get a surface[/q1]
    US
    [q1]> history over here. ;-) But at least with scheduled presidential[/q1]
    elections, the
    [q1]> incumbent has to worry - even if he's a lame duck president[/q1]

    Worry - why???

    The lame duck, surely, is the guy half way through his first term who has to focus on primaries,
    then pres. elections, making the whole exercise last two yers and deflect from running the country.

    [q1]> (one in the second term -no keeping him in office no matter what happens, either).[/q1]

    Unless as Vice P he inherited the job (Johnson, Ford) in which case IIRC he/she could in theory do
    nearly 3 terms = 12 years.

    [q1]> Nixon - sort of. Almost did it with Clinton - or rather, the republican-controlled congress tried,[/q1]
    [q1]> but the people said no.[/q1]

    It's widely seen here (UK) that the USA's VP (whoever, whenever) is your president's best
    life-insurance and deterrent against impeachment.

    --
    Martin

    (remove barrier to reply)

    On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:54:53 +0100, *Ace* <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote:

    [q1]>What do you think a vote of no confidence is. And the Queen can call an election at any time - she[/q1]
    [q1]>is, after all, The Constitution. Certainly a more refined constitution than the fundamentally[/q1]
    [q1]>flawed US constitution, riddled with various ad-hoc amendments.[/q1]

    Well I can't speak for the US constitution but placing power in the hands of an inbred tax-dodging
    millionairess parasite may not be the best possible method

    ******************************** ****
    **** http://user1951.tripod.com ****
    Information about films,
    Jack London, Lara Croft
    Shakespeare and ICT program of study
    last updated 30 05 2002

    *Ace* <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> Hi SLieber24,[/q1]

    [q1]> What do you think a vote of no confidence is. And the Queen can call an election at any time[/q1]

    Tosh - she wouldn't be allowed to - and if she did, the monarchy would fall in hours.

    It would be similar (but even more outrageous) to her declining to give royal assent.

    --
    Martin

    (remove barrier to reply)

    "martin" <[email protected] k> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    [q1]> Curious that the only thing preventing BC from continuing was your[/q1]
    daft
    [q1]> constitution - not the people at all, who would have re-elected him overwhelmingly - especially[/q1]
    [q1]> given the ludicrous alternative on offer[/q1]
    from
    [q1]> both parties.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]

    Ah, but that is wonderful, it stops a politician dead in their tracks, they can only have at most
    two goes at holding the power of a head of state. It reminds them they are "mortal".

    But best of all, the US President only has a free hand with foreign policiy, their "potency" with
    domestic powers has been effectively neutered. And the Americn *2* house system have delegated
    powers, with proper checks and balances on each other. Plus any federal legislation they pass has
    to be passed at state level too, and over 30-something states must also pass the legislation for it
    to become "federal". But Sandi can correct my figures and interpretations, she grew up in the US
    sytem; me, I've only read about it and envied the marvellous way in which the US founding fathers
    made it damn near impossible for "power" to be hi-jacked and abused for too long. It isn't perfect,
    nothing s - but it is a lot better than the "subject" system we live under. We're still serfs in
    all but name.

    Tradition, custom and practice are just the delusionary shines on an apple that is effectively
    rotten to the core.

    --
    `p

    Hi User 1951,

    On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:52:54 GMT, in uk.education.teachers User 1951 put fingers to keyboard and
    tapped away writing...

    Message ID:- <[email protected] e.net>

    [q1]> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:54:53 +0100, *Ace* <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >What do you think a vote of no confidence is. And the Queen can call an election at any time -[/q2]
    [q2]> >she is, after all, The Constitution. Certainly a more refined constitution than the fundamentally[/q2]
    [q2]> >flawed US constitution, riddled with various ad-hoc amendments.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Well I can't speak for the US constitution but placing power in the hands of an inbred tax-dodging[/q1]
    [q1]> millionairess parasite may not be the best possible method [/q1]

    Would you prefer power to be placed in the hands of someone who has a teenage intern giving him blow
    jobs in his equivalent of the Cabinet Room?

    Or the hands of an alcoholic?

    Or a failed actor?

    Or a peanut farmer?

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> ******************************** ****[/q1]
    [q1]> **** http://user1951.tripod.com ****[/q1]
    [q1]> Information about films,[/q1]
    [q1]> Jack London, Lara Croft[/q1]
    [q1]> Shakespeare and ICT program of study[/q1]
    [q1]> last updated 30 05 2002[/q1]

    Best wishes, Ace

    ==============================

    Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
    full height. On, on, you noblest English.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
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.