hypochondriac

Hold on so you're saying that OF COURSE children under ten can pass on covid 19 to adults? This is huge news. Presumably you have some evidence for this claim? At best it is not known, there's no of course about it.

There is not one single reported case in the world of transmission of covid between a child under ten and an adult. Young children cannot do social distancing and they should not be asked to. Sensible precautions should be taken by the adults and risk should be managed just like everyone else who is still working is doing. Early years settings and schools have stayed open albeit at lower capacity and as far as I am aware there have been no cases in these settings. Even nurseries in hospitals have reported no cases. Lots of teacher unions and headteachers are making lots of noise about it being unsafe but have yet to come up with any solutions to make it more safe in their eyes. If they judge it unsafe now, at what point do they believe it will suddenly be safe again to the degree that they can open? Or are they proposing that schools stay shut for the 18 months to a year that it may take to possibly have a workable vaccine? Teachers unions don't speak for teachers, they speak on behalf of some teachers and also some who have been pressured into joining but actually disagree with a lot of what the unions say. I think you'll find there are a lot of teachers who have continued to go into work during all this and are quite happy to return in June.

I'm sick to death of some teachers and their attitude, making parents feel guilty for following government guidance. Teachers know they will get paid regardless and so have no economic pressure to return to work. This is just one example from a school earlier today: That's a complete distortion of the guidance and it seems to me that some teachers want the government to either cure the virus or keep them off from school indefinitely (this includes some of my friends who are teachers with this attitude.) it's not a surprise to me that the ones screaming loudest about having to return are those in the public sector who don't have to deal directly with the immediate economic impact that this is having.

Agreed. Easily replaceable and not a huge loss.

I wasn't particularly referring to her even if I disagreed with her politically.

It's obvious to anyone that starmer presents a much sterner challenge than Corbyn ever did. I could easily see starmer winning the next election, it's just a shame he has decided to appoint a load of loons to the shadow cabinet. Hopefully some of them can be quietly moved on after a while once he's done appeasing the far left nutters and those who can't tell you what the definition of a woman is.

Got told this in December: Anniversary next year. Almost certainly isn't going to be stripes, we may see a return of the sash. Someone got sacked for leaking the kit last year so understandably people don't want to reveal anything much this year.

There's a few things that get stuck in a glory hole though.

Tbf some of that stuff was actually essential. Having no locks on the upstairs windows and not having enough fire doors was a real hazard and I remember quite a few occasions havibg to wear my coat in the classroom when the boiler failed. You're right though that some of that was definitely unnecessary.

Imagine thinking that holding the canary of all things up as an example of honest and unbiased reporting is some sort of gotcha.

I only think in the last decade or so it's really lost its way.

Gone into administration so unlikely to survive sadly. Think it's gone to hell a bit recently though so maybe for the best.

Genuinely I'd be interested in seeing where it says that because I haven't seen it.

Oh christ is soggy banging on about Tommy Robinson again? He's like a one man fan club.

Yes but where does it say that fleeting contact and a small dosage is not sufficient to catch it?

What makes you say that? That looks identical to what has been said for the last few days.

Where have you read the bit about fleeting contact and small dosage?

I was referring to the 2016 election not Bush. It may well be fundamentally unfair how the US election is conducted but the fact remains that there was only ever a serious protest in regards to it from many many Democrats after they had lost. Where were the protests about how unfair the election is before the result? It didn't exist because had hilary lost the popular vote and won the presidency, the same people who have moaned about the system for four years would be defending it.

Was there a giant concerted campaign about the unfairness of it all to the degree we had following the 2016 election result beforehand? Would democrats have been so vociferous about how unfair the system is if the result had been reversed? Of course not it's rank hypocrisy and the only reason that many of them are even remotely bothered is because their candidate lost.

It's odd that the vast majority of democrats in America didn't have a problem with things up until the point that trump won the election. If there were large campaigns before that then fair enough but there wasn't. Had hilary won in the same manner to trump, you'd have the same idiocy spouted from the republican side and they'd receive the same reply. It's just hypocrisy to complain about a voting system after you've lost.

O rly?

Tbf with respect to the ofsted I don't think they were meant to have it but someone didn't fill out the paperwork properly. They've got a few more modern facilities now than when I was there but most of the teachers with character retired a long time ago.

Think it was dropped and he moved away.

Hardly. It's on the online live stream so not hard to find.

Eh? Wasn't Biden accused of penetrating a woman with his fingers against her will?