|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 2, 2024 16:25:42 GMT
So now I'm confused. If not global equality of wealth, then what exactly do people mean by "equality"? It's easy to spout the word, preaching sagely about its unfairness, usually in some virtue-seeking context, we've heard it for years, but what exactly is it calling for? If it's considered acceptable that some in the system are to be left financially poorer than others, as outlined above, then it follows axiomatically that they will be disadvantaged in other matters of equality, such as equality of healthcare, or equality of opportunity. For example, they won't be able to pay for the better private healthcare or better private education that other, wealthier people can afford. Just what are we supposed to make of this holy grail, this nebulous concept of "equality"? Well firstly, who is actually talking about "Global Equality" ? I'm not sure that there is any political movement that talks about "global equality" in the terms you are suggesting i.e. all people across the globe are made equal in wealth. Or even equal in opportunity in the sense you have described (that a person in country A should have the same opportunity to access say advanced health care as a person in country B). There are movements that push the equality agenda globally, and they may refer to "Global Equality" (e.g. www.globalequality.org/index.php). But what they are talking about is promoting and pushing for equality principles to be adopted globally. That is not the same or even has any remote relation to any idea of levelling up/levelling down globally, or even within country, as you have implied. The predominantly (universally?) accepted meaning of "Equality" is "equality of opportunity". That is the same meaning you will find in pretty much any EDI training. It encompasses the concepts of "no discrimination on the basis of race/religion/gender/sexual orientation/disability" etc - in UK law what is referred to as "protected characteristics". That means both direct discrimination but also perhaps the less obvious forms of discrimination such as indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment, victimisation etc. I can't really answer where your confusion comes from because I don't know where you got the idea that the principle of equality meant anything like you have suggested. ...I'm not sure I have suggested anything in this post, I'm trying to establish what others think is meant by "equality". Yes, we've moved beyond that. The phrase "If not global equality..." was important. Beyond that, I referred to "the system", to imply city, state, country, planet or whatever boundary you prefer. So "equality" to you essentially means a society absent discrimination, that's a fair shout. To many, though, equality means far more than non-discrimination. Many believe there can be no equality in the UK while some families enjoy the trappings of wealth when others cannot. So absence of discrimination doesn't entirely cut it as the definition of this nebulous state of equality. While you have a non-uniform distribution of wealth in a system, I can't see how you can ever have equality - including 'equality of opportunity' as you and adrianc have suggested. While you have those who can afford a bigger house, with a bedroom each and a library/study, and private education, you immediately tip the balance of opportunity straight into inequality. The word 'equality' is bandied about like it's some state of nirvana we must attain at all costs, yet it's actually impossible to ever achieve. The notion is quite daft really. 'Wealth redistribution' would at least be a more honest label. My own view is that we can't possibly ever have equality, because people simply aren't equal. We are competitive beings. We compete at school, examinations are there to grade us into different abilities (already we are unequal from school age), we then compete for our jobs, we compete for the best partner, we compete for promotion, we compete against each other to purchase the best homes for ourselves, and so it goes on. Winners and losers at every turn. It's in our DNA, we are so not equal. At a global level, countries have always competed for the best lands, the best natural resources, the most power/influence, the greatest wealth, and that's still the case today. We are never going to be equal. That's not to say we can't address certain inequalities in small measure here and there, but there's no point in trying to push water uphill. Essentially we are not all equal and we need to accept that and live with it. I agree equality of opportunity is a laudable aim, but how can it ever truly be achieved without equality of wealth? And, if we ever managed that, are you then comfortable with poorer nations enjoying far less equality of opportunity than the UK? Isn't the logical, natural consequence that we all need to level right down to the point we have just £78k each remaining, right across the world? If not, why not? And are you willing to do that? Because anything less isn't true equality. I often wonder whether some of those who bang on the loudest about equality (notably quite wealthy clerics and leftie politicians, ad nauseam) really understand what they'd have to give up to achieve it.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,042 
Likes: 5,157
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 2, 2024 17:07:22 GMT
Many believe there can be no equality in the UK while some families enjoy the trappings of wealth when others cannot. So absence of discrimination doesn't entirely cut it as the definition of this nebulous state of equality. While you have a non-uniform distribution of wealth in a system, I can't see how you can ever have equality - including 'equality of opportunity' as you and adrianc have suggested. While you have those who can afford a bigger house, with a bedroom each and a library/study, and private education, you immediately tip the balance of opportunity straight into inequality. That's precisely what equality of opportunity aims to remove. Picture two kids. One is from a wealthy family in leafy suburbia. The parents can afford private school, all the extra-curricular bling. The other is from a down-at-heel part of the inner city going to a state school. The parents are scrimping for everything. Both are equally bright and capable. Is it right that one will inevitably and predictably have a much easier life than the other? Removing THAT is what equality of opportunity is about. Giving everybody the same chances at building a good life for themselves. Now rinse and repeat for all the other layers of disadvantage - gender, ethnicity, religion, migration status, disability, sexuality, etc. The law has banned explicit discrimination on assorted grounds for a decade and a half - www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rightsSo why do they still make so much difference? Take a small example - why are kids from private schools over-represented ~5:1 in the British Olympic teams? Like I said... Equality of opportunity ... is relatively straightforward to understand, and shouldn't be that controversial a concept to anybody, although full implementation is not quite so straightforward - but we can at least try.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 6,440
|
Post by registerme on Aug 2, 2024 18:06:41 GMT
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,335
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 2, 2024 19:10:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 2, 2024 19:13:36 GMT
Many believe there can be no equality in the UK while some families enjoy the trappings of wealth when others cannot. So absence of discrimination doesn't entirely cut it as the definition of this nebulous state of equality. While you have a non-uniform distribution of wealth in a system, I can't see how you can ever have equality - including 'equality of opportunity' as you and adrianc have suggested. While you have those who can afford a bigger house, with a bedroom each and a library/study, and private education, you immediately tip the balance of opportunity straight into inequality. That's precisely what equality of opportunity aims to remove. Picture two kids. One is from a wealthy family in leafy suburbia. The parents can afford private school, all the extra-curricular bling. The other is from a down-at-heel part of the inner city going to a state school. The parents are scrimping for everything. Both are equally bright and capable. Is it right that one will inevitably and predictably have a much easier life than the other? Removing THAT is what equality of opportunity is about. Giving everybody the same chances at building a good life for themselves. Now rinse and repeat for all the other layers of disadvantage - gender, ethnicity, religion, migration status, disability, sexuality, etc. The law has banned explicit discrimination on assorted grounds for a decade and a half - www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rightsSo why do they still make so much difference? Take a small example - why are kids from private schools over-represented ~5:1 in the British Olympic teams? Like I said... Equality of opportunity ... is relatively straightforward to understand, and shouldn't be that controversial a concept to anybody, although full implementation is not quite so straightforward - but we can at least try. Kid number two. You've just described me perfectly, apart from the inner city part. Suburban council house, dad low paid, 4 kids, mum cleaning job mornings or evenings to make ends meet. Barely one holiday until I was 11 years old and we could afford a frame tent. That was our annual holiday until I became an adult. A week in a tent in a Welsh field. Scraping and scrimping, we lived out of the Traffords and Freemans catalogues. That won't mean anything to someone with your background, but a few here will know what I'm talking about. Everything in the house, white goods, clothes, furniture, toys, shoes, bicycles all on expensive credit terms over 20 or 52 weeks. Constantly in debt. My one big opportunity to escape was getting a place at the grammar school and I'll always be grateful for that. And what did the Labour party, those great champions of "equality of opportunity" do to improve the outlook for bright kids like me, and my sisters behind me? They abolished the grammar schools. I hope they're pleased with the result.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,042
Likes: 5,157
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 3, 2024 7:48:41 GMT
That won't mean anything to someone with your background What's my "background", and why wouldn't it? You mean they stopped the other 75% of kids, those who weren't as lucky as you, being written off at age 11...?
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Aug 3, 2024 9:06:10 GMT
As the kid who just missed Grammer, there was a discussion of transferring me at the end of the 1st year of sec mod by the school but as it had never been done before was abandoned.It absolutely formed my life chances detrimentally. My school produced engineers for the mod, factory like. When I said I wished to be a vet I was told children from this school don't become vets.Now how would you like an apprenticeship on the Navy base or the weapons research site, maybe the atomic site at Winfrith. Even the navy would only accept me as a rating, artificer no .
Grammer gave some kids a fantastic leg up from poor backgounds but at a huge cost to the rest, I would not want to see it's return.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 6,440
|
Post by registerme on Aug 3, 2024 9:38:49 GMT
When I said I wished to be a vet I was told children from this school don't become vets. This sort of attitude appalls and enrages me. It's patronising, dismissive, limiting and... helpless. I hope to hell it's no longer prevalent.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Aug 3, 2024 10:17:07 GMT
I went to a comprehensive, and it was a really good school. I think learning not to get beaten up by the more psychopathic thickos was an important life lesson. My school was streamed, I'm not sure if that was the norm. I'm also not sure what quality of education the streams 2 and 3 got were. But just writing the end of that last sentence gives me great pleasure as I can imagine excellent English teacher Mr Parry shaking his head sadly at me.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,042
Likes: 5,157
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 3, 2024 10:42:52 GMT
I went to a comprehensive, and it was a really good school. I think learning not to get beaten up by the more psychopathic thickos was an important life lesson. My school was streamed, I'm not sure if that was the norm. I'm also not sure what quality of education the streams 2 and 3 got were. I went to a large comp, with a mix of farm kids and the kids of city commuters etc. A fair few of the kids from my year went on to Oxbridge, and some to medical school, but of course quite a lot left at the end of the fifth year, some off to try and get jobs (or work on the farm) with very few qualifications, others off to the local tech college for OND etc instead of A-levels. We were streamed in English and Maths. Top set/s did Eng Lit and Further Maths O-level, as well as Lang and "normal". Lower sets did CSE. The lowest were non-exam. Some optional fourth-fifth year subjects were streamed between O-level and CSE groups. There was movement up and down between sets for those who did well or were struggling.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Aug 3, 2024 10:53:26 GMT
I went to a comprehensive, and it was a really good school. I think learning not to get beaten up by the more psychopathic thickos was an important life lesson. My school was streamed, I'm not sure if that was the norm. I'm also not sure what quality of education the streams 2 and 3 got were. I went to a large comp, with a mix of farm kids and the kids of city commuters etc. A fair few of the kids from my year went on to Oxbridge, and some to medical school, but of course quite a lot left at the end of the fifth year, some off to try and get jobs (or work on the farm) with very few qualifications, others off to the local tech college for OND etc instead of A-levels. We were streamed in English and Maths. Top set/s did Eng Lit and Further Maths O-level, as well as Lang and "normal". Lower sets did CSE. The lowest were non-exam. Some optional fourth-fifth year subjects were streamed between O-level and CSE groups. There was movement up and down between sets for those who did well or were struggling. I was in the lunch queue once and got punched in the kidneys by Laura Davies DBE, rough nutter girl from a lower stream. I didn't have her pegged as the one notable success to emerge from our school, as I picked myself off the floor.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,604
Likes: 2,629
|
Post by keitha on Aug 3, 2024 11:32:51 GMT
seems amazing how many of us are from humble backgrounds, I suppose it says something about the way we see others, I assumed that it was probably me and 1 or 2 others on here who I too managed to pass the 11 plus and attended a good grammar school, both of my parents came from poor backgrounds granddad on my fathers side sold milk which he collected from a local farm anything that went off or was left at the end of the day was fed to the pig(s). Mums dad was a jobbing gardener. Mum was an auxiliary nurse who trained up to become a SEN, Dad was an ambulance driver who later trained as a paramedic rather then the old scoop and run. One of my cousins became the first member of the family to go to grammar school, and I was the first boy, the 2 of us were relentlessly teased by others about it ( today it would be called bullying but then it was teasing ). I was bullied at school because I was small ( even when I left at 18 I was only 5 ft 6 and 7 stone ), because my clothes were often shabby, and because I preferred to read rather than play sport. Like bernythedolt I worked in the public sector for many years, and witnessed first hand the inequalities of career progression, I had a junior member of staff promoted over me, it just so happened he had 2 relatives who were councillors. I saw people moving up whose relatives were wealthy landowners promoted several times in a few years. I was once told the reason I didn't get a promotion was because the other candidate in the last 2 was female and that they had a government target to have more women towards the top to meet. In one reorganisation and as Berny will confirm these are almost a way of life at times, I was one of 6 team leaders who reported to the head of IT. the afternoon after it was announced I was summonsed to see the head of IT, and was told that I would now be reporting to a team leader in my team and that the team leader would report to a team manager of which there were to be 3. I asked why I was demoted i was told 2 team leaders had thought they should have more responsibility so were made team managers managing 2 teams along with a 3rd person and that myself and another had been close for team leader, but that "she came into my office and cried at me" I asked about being team leader of one of the other teams as 2 didn't have leaders and was told that positions had been filled and they were speaking to me last as they knew I would accept the decision without getting upset ! I actually saw one young lady promoted from clerical assistant to PA to a director in less than 18 months, obviously nothing to do with her having a relationship with a senior councillor. I saw a PA who never left the office given a lease car, because her boss asked for her to be promoted and the assessment came back that she has less responsibility than most other PAs so couldn't be paid more. That same PA also refused to store any of her files on the network and kept everything on Floppy disks ( which she locked away ) if IT went into the office ! Her boss was done for corruption and within 24 hours of his arrest she was escorted from the building and never seen again. Inequlity was everywhere I saw new pc's given to secretaries / PA's and the 2 year old ones given to architects to run CAD etc. for years Laptops were regarded as a perk not on the basis of X may need to work from home. I also think the fact that I would speak my mind hindered my career progression, as I was never a "yes man" |
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 3, 2024 11:33:40 GMT
When I said I wished to be a vet I was told children from this school don't become vets. This sort of attitude appalls and enrages me. It's patronising, dismissive, limiting and... helpless. I hope to hell it's no longer prevalent. I think teaching has changed a lot over the years. I only experience it somewhat tangentially, in that I do some instruction in schools, always primary level. The atmosphere and language though is very different. I also know it from some former teachers that I work with and a teacher I have as a friend. The dominant ethos now seems to be to help enable every child to be the best they can be. The same attitude is also all pervasive in the way we do (and are expected to do) our stuff. None of which is to say there aren't still bad eggs in the profession of course. While its by no way the sole reason for it, I think the abolition of the grammar/secondary modern split has probably been a significant influencing or at least enabling factor: you can no longer get away with considering a secondary school to be a 'sink school'.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,604
Likes: 2,629
|
Post by keitha on Aug 3, 2024 11:39:52 GMT
I went to a comprehensive, and it was a really good school. I think learning not to get beaten up by the more psychopathic thickos was an important life lesson. My school was streamed, I'm not sure if that was the norm. I'm also not sure what quality of education the streams 2 and 3 got were. But just writing the end of that last sentence gives me great pleasure as I can imagine excellent English teacher Mr Parry shaking his head sadly at me. My brother went to a non streamed Comprehensive he always said 1/2 of every lesson was getting the non engaged kids just to sit down and be quiet in his 3rd year the school introduced a form of streaming where all the non engaged kids were in one class and the other 3 classes were able to work, this still meant teachers ( and in those days teachers taught classes of 30+ with no teaching assistant ) spent a disproportionate amount of time with the less able kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 3, 2024 11:48:54 GMT
In all the memes of "The Turkish Assassin" going round, I'd not seen those two pictures alongside each other before. Its made me notice something I hadn't previously spotted. She appears to be shooting with one eyed - a pretty common and quite instinctive technique (using your dominant eye). He on the other hand is firing with both eyes open. Not unique but not that common. I had read somewhere he was in the military (not just national service), where he might well have been taught to generally use both eyes. Although I now see he was a Master Sergeant in the Gendarmarie (but yes did attend military school). Whether the two are actually linked or not is another matter.
|
|
