***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
Continuing discussion.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 30 Mar 15 at 12:45
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11492933/Alex-Salmond-Ill-bring-down-the-Tories-and-install-Miliband.html
That's what happens in a hung Parliament. If Conservatives are largest party they get first bite at the cherry. If they cannot command a majority in the Commons then Miliband, as leader of second largest party, gets a go. I'd rather Salmond made his position clear now instead of hiding behind weasel words.
I think Miliband made a tactical error in promising 'No SNP Ministers' in any government he led.
Realistically, it's the closest election for 40yrs. Trying to pre-empt what youwont do is likely to leave on egg on face if the outcome is not as expected.
|
It has been seriously suggested that an informal Con/Lab coalition is not impossible.
Apparently there is a council somewhere in Scotland run like that, to keep out the SNP.
|
>>It has been seriously suggested that an informal Con/Lab coalition is not impossible.
Miliband might get elected PM with the help of the SNP, but would the English electorate ever forgive Labour?
Brompton>>That's what happens in a hung Parliament. If Conservatives are largest party they
>>get first bite at the cherry. If they cannot command a majority in the Commons then
>>Miliband, as leader of second largest party, gets a go.
As our self-appointed constitutional expert, please would you point me to the legislation (or other law/regulations) that state this to be true. It's certainly not GB thought in early May five years ago...
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 26 Mar 15 at 15:48
|
|
Actually, the first bite at the cherry is with the previous leading party. Happened last in February 1974 when Ted Heath tried to form a parliament with the Liberals
|
The Terrorflag of all comics seemed yesterday to be predicting an absolute Labour majority of 30 seats.
Really it's in the lap of the gods as usual.
|
>> As our self-appointed constitutional expert, please would you point me to the legislation (or other
>> law/regulations) that state this to be true. It's certainly not GB thought in early May
>> five years ago...
You're quite right. Cameron, as incumbent, gets first bite even if he's not leading largest party.
Which makes the huffing and puffing over the SNP's position as an affront to democracy even more ridiculous.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 26 Mar 15 at 17:00
|
>> >>It has been seriously suggested that an informal Con/Lab coalition is not impossible.
>>
>> Miliband might get elected PM with the help of the SNP, but would the English
>> electorate ever forgive Labour?
Annoying as it is that Fishy Salmond keep throwing his weight about in a blustery manner, its is a direct consequence of maintaining the union. As I was all for keeping the union, I suppose I shall have to keep my thoughts about him and his gob to myself.
|
|
If the referendum was held now I think we'd be pleading with them to do one and close the door behind them.
|
"I think we'd be pleading with them to do one and close the door behind them."
This is why the English weren't invited to vote on the issue in the first place.
|
>> I suppose I shall have to keep my thoughts about him and
>> his gob to myself.
>
Politician + gob. Not exactly a surprising combo......
|
Miliband was utterly sausaged by Paxman last night.
No matter what the content of the questioning, his failure to demonstrate any charisma as a potential national leader was rather disappointing.
I think there will be a fair number of 'traditional Labour voters' who will be facepalming today and considering where else to throw their 'X' in May.
|
>> Was it *that* bad?
No. Like anything with a high profile presenter it was as much possibly more, about Paxo than about Miliband or Cameron.
Cameron was quite prone to falling to a confused mumble, eg over the deficit. He took a long time too to decide that, pressed on whether he could live on zero hours contract, the point was actually, some people want them. Good PR man with no grasp of detail.
Miliband doesn't pretend to be charismatic; it's not a Presidential contest and even then is charisma really the key? He answered questions honestly and with, on the highlights I saw, less mumbling and prevarication than the PM. Pressed on what concessions he might give to the SNP he got a punch in on Paxo - election is still to fight for.
|
|
To be honest picking up on what I take to be a lack of charisma on Cameron's part and making that a bad thing, then picking up on a lack of charisma on Milliband's part and making that a good thing, and then rounding it off by asking whether or not charisma is the key in any case tends to suggest to me that Milliband probably did quite badly.
|
>> To be honest picking up on what I take to be a lack of charisma
>> on Cameron's part and making that a bad thing,
It was Lygonos, to whom I was responding via your post, who mentioned charisma.
My point about Cameron was his lack of grasp for or ability to express detail, nothing to do with charisma.
|
>> My point about Cameron was his lack of grasp for or ability to express detail,
Milliband has the inability to express anything.
|
>> Milliband has the inability to express anything.
Whatever.
|
>> >> Milliband has the inability to express anything.
>>
>> Whatever.
Not far off the mark IMO. I can rarely recall what he has just said when I have listened to him!
|
Surely up where you are they are all going to vote SNP anyway aren't they so that nice Mr Salmond can run England and Wales as well :-)
|
Certainly looks that way.
Will be just like the good old days when we voted for Blair and then Broon to run y'all.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 27 Mar 15 at 14:42
|
|
Anyone down there who does not vote Tory is voting for Salmond. Horrifying thought.
|
>> Anyone down there who does not vote Tory is voting for Salmond. Horrifying thought.
The only people voting for Salmond are in Gordon.
|
>> >> Anyone down there who does not vote Tory is voting for Salmond. Horrifying thought.
>>
>> The only people voting for Salmond are in Gordon.
You well know what he means though.
Salmond has done it on purpose, so that the Tories have more of a chance of winning the UK election, so he can sell that as unacceptable to a large chunk of Scottish voters, so he can have a re-run at the independence referendum.
|
>> Salmond has done it on purpose
Of course it was done on purpose. But I suspect it's more about reassuring Scots wavering between Lab and SNP then anything to do with the English. Indeed, there's a school of thought down here that says some SNP style radical backbone would be good for Labour.
|
"Indeed, there's a school of thought down here that says some SNP style radical backbone would be good for Labour. "
I suspect that it would be very good indeed for the Conservatives
|
The verdict from the twittersphere was reportedly slightly in Ed's favour. Maybe Labour's politically-minded are more likely to tweet than Colonel and Lady Bufton-Tufton.
I warmed to him slightly last night partly because he's so cringingly bad at the "charisma" i.e. image projection.
Then he blew it today by saying that private companies doing NHS treatments will not be able to make more than 5% profit.
I don't know what his original occupation was, if he had one, but I don't need to be an accountant to know he isn't one.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 27 Mar 15 at 15:29
|
Suddenly the NHS will have a shortage of beds and surgeons .. and no private supplier will work for them.. and patients will die unnecessarily...
The Law of Unintended Comsequences.
|
Katie Hopkins says she'll leave UK if Miliband wins.
That should be worth a few votes for Labour.
|
>> Katie Hopkins says she'll leave UK if Miliband wins.
No chance, who else will have her?
|
>>Katie Hopkins says she'll leave UK if Miliband wins.
Dammit. Mixed feelings or what.
Do you think she means it? Better vote for Milliband in case.
You don't think she'd come this way, do you? Better vote for Cameron in case.
Mind you, people should remember that the man who is PM is frequently not the problem. It is often the type of people he brings with him.
And the people around Milliband, Farage, Clegg and Salmond worry me a darn sight more than those around Cameron.
Especially those around Clegg and Farage.
|
>> And the people around Milliband, Farage, Clegg and Salmond worry me a darn sight more
>> than those around Cameron.
Have you heard of Michael Gove, Chris Grayling or Nicky Morgan? Try listening to Esther McVey who seems to think her slight Scouse accent gives a ring of truth when she talks rollox about the unemployed.
|
Idiots to be sure. But I find them less worrying than the idiots around the others.
Degrees of awfulness, none of them are good.
|
>> Especially those around Clegg and Farage.
Who are the ones around Clegg who worry you? From my perspective I've not much time for some the so called 'orange book' LibDems (though making an exception for Cable) but I'd be surprised if that was your issue.
|
Who is Katie Hopkins?
Guess I'll have to Google
|
I am sure one can find different results by searching, but my quick look revealed...
BBC:
an early ICM opinion poll for the Guardian suggested Mr Cameron shaded it, with 54% of of the 1,123 viewers surveyed saying they thought the PM "won".
Granuad:
An instant Guardian poll found that David Cameron had narrowly “won†the contest with 54% saying that the PM came out on top once the don’t knows were excluded, compared with just 46% who felt that Miliband had the edge.
Mail:
a YouGov survey had it closer: Cameron 51% and Miliband 49%
Telegraph:
66% of readers who have voted believe that Cameron "won"..
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 27 Mar 15 at 15:49
|
>> Who is Katie Hopkins?
>> Guess I'll have to Google
How curious you must be CGN! I'm just not interested enough.
|
|
Didn't bother in the end.
|
>> Miliband was utterly sausaged by Paxman last night.
I thought he did all right. But I also thought I detected a certain bias in his favour in Jeremy Paxman's approach.
I agree with those who think 'charisma' is more or less irrelevant in this context. It's just spray-on essence of spraunce, dazzling to the hoi polloi but useless in every other way.
Not even the hoi polloi really go for it. After all they voted for Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson. Not much charisma radiating from those important, game-changing PMs was there? No one needs it except unimaginative hacks who aren't serious about politics.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 27 Mar 15 at 16:13
|
|
The small bit of the Milliband/Paxman interview was that Milliband was not answering questions. He'd start talking about something totally different. And he kept doing it. So I lost interest.
|
>> Milliband was not answering questions.
Neither was the PM. What do you expect? If you can't 'not answer questions' you won't last long as a mainstream politico.
At one point Cameron said something like: 'A straight answer needs a straight question'. Eh? What?
No doubt the inversion was accidental. But no pundit picked up on it and Paxman let it pass. Or perhaps it was noticed, but comment if any landed on the cutting room floor. Can't help feeling the media have declined since my day.
|
How can you blame politicians for not giving straight answers?
If anyone told the bald truth, ie we're in a mess, taxes need to rise and benefits have to be cut we wouldn't vote for him. We'd elect the other guy who promised he'd spend more while taxing us less, even though he'd do exactly the same as guy 1 when he got into office and most of us know deep down that's exactly what he'll do anyway.
We just like to bury our heads and go with the crowd pleaser.
|
>> At one point Cameron said something like: 'A straight answer needs a straight question'.
Wasn't that during Wednesday's PMQ's?
Or did he repeat himself last night?
BTW. It's getting very fashionable to transpose the names David and Ed Milliband.
|
It appear that Ed Milliband was quite severely jostled by demonstrators as he was attempting to enter his car after the show.
As you probably know, Nigel Farage & family were subjected to something similar when out for a family lunch last Sunday.
Both incidents are equally wrong.
|
>> Both incidents are equally wrong.
Much as I dislike the bloke, Prescott had the right idea - a punch in the gob.
|
On the written constitution question here's something else dodgy that was stuffed in at last minute sans any debate:
www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/society-outrage-at-back-door-criminal-court-fees/5047914.article
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11502751/We-will-borrow-more-if-we-win-the-election-Labour-admits.html
They've quite clearly committed to borrow to invest. If that's building say social housing and the rent covers the cost what's the issue?
At least there's some differentiation between the parties.
EDIT - The link seems to just go to a generic DT header page.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 29 Mar 15 at 19:22
|
>> They've quite clearly committed to borrow to invest. If that's building say social housing and
>> the rent covers the cost what's the issue?
LOL - brilliant, typical left wing thinking. If rent covers the building cost thats called a mortgage, very right wing non social housing principal that one.
|
>> LOL - brilliant, typical left wing thinking. If rent covers the building cost thats called
>> a mortgage, very right wing non social housing principal that one.
Call it what you like, loan available at unprecedented low rates, is covered by rental income
Your point is what?
|
>>
>> Your point is what?
That you have a typical left wing borrow to live idea about economics.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 29 Mar 15 at 20:13
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Your point is what?
>>
>> That you have no idea about economics.
>>
Spending money on building more council houses is an economic no no?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 29 Mar 15 at 20:14
|
>> Spending money on building more council houses is an economic no no?
Expecting the rent (social housing levels anyway) to cover the building cost can't happen.
|
>> Expecting the rent (social housing levels anyway) to cover the building cost can't happen.
Really?
So the public purse chips in for the commercial mortgage of the buy to let landlord instead?
|
>> Expecting the rent (social housing levels anyway) to cover the building cost can't happen.
>>
Why?
|
>> >> Expecting the rent (social housing levels anyway) to cover the building cost can't happen.
>> >>
>>
>> Why?
>>
Because the rent is paid with benefits (borrowed government money).
|
snipquote for the lazy person
>> Because the rent is paid with benefits (borrowed government money).
>>
All rent in social housing is paid for with benefits?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 30 Mar 15 at 00:52
|
>> All rent in social housing is paid for with benefits?
>>
My guess is a good proportion, same as private rents. If people can afford to pay rent why not buy?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 29 Mar 15 at 20:50
|
>> >> All rent in social housing is paid for with benefits?
>> >>
>>
>> My guess is a good proportion, same as private rents.
We'll assume that's true for the time being, so where should that benefit money go?
|
>>We'll assume that's true for the time being, so where should that benefit money go?>>
It should be paid in vouchers. Which are not valid for fags, drugs, TVs, i phones, booze, holidays, or any luxury goods.
|
>> >>We'll assume that's true for the time being, so where should that benefit money go?>>
>>
>>
>> It should be paid in vouchers.
To whom should the housing vouchers be paid to?
|
>> My guess is a good proportion, same as private rents. If people can afford to
>> pay rent why not buy?
Would you like to talk that through with my younger ex-colleagues working in London.
|
>> Would you like to talk that through with my younger ex-colleagues working in London.
>>
Tell them to move to where they can afford to live within their means.
|
>> >> My guess is a good proportion, same as private rents. If people can afford
>> to
>> >> pay rent why not buy?
>>
>> Would you like to talk that through with my younger ex-colleagues working in London.
If no-one could afford to pay mortgages, house prices would fall. If no-one could afford the rents, they would fall. Its simple market economics -price levels can only survive at a level of affordability.
|
The market is distorted by the fact that buyers and renters in many cases are not spending their own money; and to make it worse, Osborne creates help to buy scheme.
The astronomical sums paid out in housing benefit can only keep prices and rents high. At least volume purpose built social housing kept the effect out of the mainstream market. Unintended consequences again.
|
>> Spending money on building more council houses is an economic no no?
Must be so; like depression = unbalanced the Oracle has spoken.
|
>> >> Spending money on building more council houses is an economic no no?
>>
>> Must be so; like depression = unbalanced the Oracle has spoken.
Its an unarguable fact. If you were balanced you wouldn't get depressed. Try thinking about the logic of it.
|
>> Its an unarguable fact. If you were balanced you wouldn't get depressed. Try thinking about
>> the logic of it.
You may know a lot about dogs, or computers and perhaps other stuff too.
On the subject of depression though you're either trolling or you need to do some serious reading.
|
>> On the subject of depression though you're either trolling or you need to do some
>> serious reading.
>
You can't argue that someone who gets depressed is balanced, logically its just impossible.
|
>> You can't argue that someone who gets depressed is balanced, logically its just impossible.
Only if you fail to understand, wilfully or otherwise, what depression is and how it affects people.
|
>> Only if you fail to understand, wilfully or otherwise, what depression is and how it
>> affects people.
Ok define balanced?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 29 Mar 15 at 20:39
|
>> Ok define balanced?
Oh no you don't.... (turn the question on its head).
You've consistently bandied around the term unbalanced. Now tell us what you think that means.
|
>> >> Ok define balanced?
>>
>> Oh no you don't.... (turn the question on its head).
>>
>> You've consistently bandied around the term unbalanced. Now tell us what you think that means.
>>
OFFS Unbalanced is not balanced.
|
>> OFFS Unbalanced is not balanced.
Whichever. You introduced the terms; now tell us what you meant.
|
>>You can't argue that someone who gets depressed is balanced, logically its just impossible.
There is reactive depression, and clinical depression. Someone who suffers with clinical depression could be deemed to be unbalanced, but if I lost someone close to me, and hence became depressed, I wouldn't necessarily be unbalanced.
|
>> >>You can't argue that someone who gets depressed is balanced, logically its just impossible.
>>
>> There is reactive depression, and clinical depression. Someone who suffers with clinical depression could be
>> deemed to be unbalanced, but if I lost someone close to me, and hence became
>> depressed, I wouldn't necessarily be unbalanced.
Let's see how long Z wriggles on the hook......
|
>> Let's see how long Z wriggles on the hook......
Do you honestly think I could have lived for 60 years without losing someone close to me? Was i upset? yes. Was I depressed? Depressed in the way that it affected any relationships, the way I looked at life? work? depressed that needed medical intervention? No. Is that a balanced way of dealing with life changing events? yes.
|
>>Is that a balanced way of dealing with life changing events?
Not getting depressed over normal life events is not the same as 'being balanced'.
75% of the population are estimated to never suffer a significant clinical depression in their lives. I guess you're one of them.
So far.
If I give you a ringside seat of your family burning to death in a car in front of you while you can do nothing to help, do you think you'd still be balanced 3 months later?
Yer erse you would.
|
>> If I give you a ringside seat of your family burning to death in a
>> car in front of you while you can do nothing to help, do you think
>> you'd still be balanced 3 months later?
>>
>> Yer erse you would.
Would I be suffering from PTSD? of course i ruddy would. Not exactly depression tho is it.
|
>>Would I be suffering from PTSD? of course i ruddy would. Not exactly depression tho is it
All parts of a giant Venn diagram.
So a PTSD suffering soldier is balanced?
|
>> >>Would I be suffering from PTSD? of course i ruddy would. Not exactly depression tho
>> is it
>>
>> All parts of a giant Venn diagram.
>>
>> So a PTSD suffering soldier is balanced?
Its not a valid comparator, and certainly isn't even on the same chart let alone the same diagram.
|
>>and certainly isn't even on the same chart let alone the same diagram
Really? I'm looking forward to this explanation.
omicsonline.org/scientific-reports/srep255.php
Enough there for the most seasoned insomniac.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 29 Mar 15 at 21:46
|
>> >>and certainly isn't even on the same chart let alone the same diagram
>>
>> Really? I'm looking forward to this explanation.
So tell me why its got a different name then?
|
>>So tell me why its got a different name then?
Do you really thing PTSD and Depression are 2 seperate, self-contained entities?
I guess you missed the edit above.
omicsonline.org/scientific-reports/srep255.php
Anyhoo, the 'PTSD' Zero who has watched his familly burn: is he balanced?
|
>> >>So tell me why its got a different name then?
>>
>> Do you really thing PTSD and Depression are 2 seperate, self-contained entities?
No I mean they are sufficiently different to be given different names. And diffent treatment, and different levels of intervention, and different outcomes. Its like trying to say that Asthma and Cystic Fibrosis are the same because they affect the lungs.
>> Anyhoo, the 'PTSD' Zero who has watched his familly burn: is he balanced?
Dunno? what are his symptoms?
|
>> >> Anyhoo, the 'PTSD' Zero who has watched his familly burn: is he balanced?
>>
>> Dunno? what are his symptoms?
>>
Unnecessarily argumentative and always thinks he's right.
|
>> Unnecessarily argumentative and always thinks he's right.
And not in the least bit depressed about it
|
>>Its like trying to say that Asthma and Cystic Fibrosis are the same because they affect the lungs.
No.
Not even close.
>>And diffent treatment, and different levels of intervention, and different outcomes.
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/Pages/treatment.aspx
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/depression/Pages/treatment.aspx
Not a world apart, eh?
|
>>
>> Not a world apart, eh?
The causes are a world apart. Someone getting depressed because the boss was nasty to them one morning is not a balanced reaction. Someone getting depressed because their family was incinerated in front of them has cause and justification so could, in one way be called a balanced reaction.
Cause and effect.
|
>>The causes are a world apart. Someone getting depressed because the boss was nasty to them one morning is not a balanced reaction. Someone getting depressed because their family was incinerated in front of them has cause and justification so could, in one way be called a balanced reaction.
And with that paragraph we can see you're a shining beacon of ignorance on this issue.
Are you now going to suggest that because you are 'balanced' you are, and always will remain, immune to depression?
0.0000000% chance that it will happen to you?
Is the Zero definition of Depression - "An abnormally unpleasant and persistent reaction to normal events suffered by the unbalanced in society"?
Still waiting for your definition of 'balanced/unbalanced' as pertaining to a person's personality/mental state/shoe size.
Once I have that definition, my job becomes much easier diagnostically and prognostically.
|
>> >>The causes are a world apart. Someone getting depressed because the boss was nasty to
>> them one morning is not a balanced reaction. Someone getting depressed because their family was
>> incinerated in front of them has cause and justification so could, in one way be
>> called a balanced reaction.
>>
>>
>> And with that paragraph we can see you're a shining beacon of ignorance on this
>> issue.
Ok fix my ignorance for me, explain to me why they are the same.
>> Are you now going to suggest that because you are 'balanced' you are, and always
>> will remain, immune to depression?
>>
>> 0.0000000% chance that it will happen to you?
No, but certainly in the top half of the 75%
>> Is the Zero definition of Depression - "An abnormally unpleasant and persistent reaction to normal
>> events suffered by the unbalanced in society"?
Now you are becoming irrational and unbalanced there.
>> Still waiting for your definition of 'balanced/unbalanced' as pertaining to a person's personality/mental state/shoe size.
>>
>> Once I have that definition, my job becomes much easier diagnostically and prognostically.
Not sure i want you on my case if you use someones shoe size to diagnose propensity to depression.
|
|
Would anyone but Zero try to argue medical matters with a doctor ?
|
|
SWAUWK SQWUAK - PIECES OF EIGHT - PIECES OF EIGHT
|
|
On here maybe, I've known a couple who would. Some people just like arguing.
|
|
I think it is called attention seeking.
|
>> I think it is called attention seeking.
dont do too much thinking, its not your forte. Have some more bird feed.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 29 Mar 15 at 23:11
|
>> Are you now going to suggest that because you are 'balanced' you are, and always
>> will remain, immune to depression?
>>
>> 0.0000000% chance that it will happen to you?
>> No, but certainly in the top half of the 75%
But I thought you were balanced and thus immune?
>>Ok fix my ignorance for me, explain to me why they are the same
Your ignorance is that you thought I said they were the same.
In fact I know you know that's not what I said - you're just being a knob.
I said there were overlaps (ie. Venn diagram) - a great number of patients with PTSD suffer significant depressive symptoms. A fair number of depressed patients suffer symptoms similar to those experience by sufferers of PTSD (disturbed sleep, flashbacks, etc).
If you think Psychiatry is a bunch of disorders discrete from one another then I think that demonstrates the ignorance you profess not to have quite well.
|
Taking depression in isolation of other challenges, presumably at the moment one is depressed, one is unbalanced - I mean simply out of balance rather than nuts.
When one is not depressed, then insofar as depression is concerned, one is balanced.
Is it more complicated than that?
Surely far more complex are the varied reasons and causes?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 29 Mar 15 at 23:35
|
>> >>You can't argue that someone who gets depressed is balanced, logically its just impossible.
>>
>> There is reactive depression, and clinical depression. Someone who suffers with clinical depression could be
>> deemed to be unbalanced, but if I lost someone close to me, and hence became
>> depressed, I wouldn't necessarily be unbalanced.
Becoming depressed is not an automatic reaction to a loss. You can be upset, you can shed a tear, you can mourn, but that is not the same as depressed.
|
Noone is balanced all of the time.
Anyone who thinks they are, really is insane - probably a narcissistic sociopath.
Any takers?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 29 Mar 15 at 20:56
|
|
Mental illness is a minefield.The first port of call should be your own doctor if you feel not right.Of course none of us is balanced all of the time.
|
>> Noone is balanced all of the time.
>>
>> Anyone who thinks they are, really is insane - probably a narcissistic sociopath.
b*****.
|
>> Noone is balanced all of the time.
>>
>> Anyone who thinks they are, really is insane - probably a narcissistic sociopath.
>>
>> Any takers?
>>
There's a couple on here.
|
>> There's a couple on here.
Never mind you can hang them.
|
>>
>> >> There's a couple on here.
>>
>> Never mind you can hang them.
>>
You'll have to do better than that.
|
>> You'll have to do better than that.
No, don't think so. It fits.
|
|
Well voting UKIP is going to allow Labour to do exactly that.
|
|
Who on earth has been littering this thread with scowlies?
|
Depression is very real.
My sister, who is 8years younger than me woke up one morning a few years ago utterly clinically depressed, with no obvious reason being identified.
She was bad - even spending a period of time in a psychiatric hospital.
After a rough couple of years or so, one morning she woke up - un-depressed - again with no obvious reason.
My daughter has just recovered from a period of depression after 13 months of pills. She is a primary school teacher with two sprogs, both attending the same school as that at which she taught.
The extreme pressure of preparation until the wee small hours combined with the huge number of reports and documentation required these days, meant working most weekends most of the day (apart from necessary shopping etc) again late into the night.
Remember she has a young family, too!
She got to the state when she dreaded going to work and burst into tears in the staff-room.
She had to give up her job.
She is now working again as a classroom assistant at an Academy (not a standard L.A. school) and is being paid not much over the minimum wage.
Low wages - but low pressure too.
Teachers are leaving the profession in droves. No wonder, I say.
|
Fishy! - Roger.
