MA
Two as far as I know. Hardly a great crime. Her second husband, Mark Boxer died in 1988 and left her with two young children to bring up.
Marcus
Founding member
TVN posted:
Yes, I was surprised with the thig from Buerk.
But not as surprised as I was with Ms Ford. And hasn't she had her fair share of husbands?
But not as surprised as I was with Ms Ford. And hasn't she had her fair share of husbands?
Two as far as I know. Hardly a great crime. Her second husband, Mark Boxer died in 1988 and left her with two young children to bring up.
JW
All these comments pertaining to Ms Ford's husbands is irrelevant to the subject of the thread.
CW
Indeed I did mean precisely. I can actually spell, I just happened to make one typo. Everyone is allowed one every now and again.
Funnily enough, I was waiting for the 'if you weren't there you have no right to comment' line. If that applied to the whole of this forum then virtually nothing would ever get posted on it.
Oh, we have an example of the arrogant presumption which you have just accused me of. Double standards? How do you KNOW I wasn't there?
In my experience, only the PC brigade would suggest that anything I said was 'slanderous'. And to turn your argument around, were YOU involved in the recruitment process for Jane Root and Lorraine Heggesey? How do YOU know that what I suggested didn't happen?
Says who? When did it become a fact? Surely whether or not a man or a woman is the best candidate for the job depends on the range of candidates they have, and is linked to their ability to do the job, rather than their gender?
It is precisely because I am training to be a primary school teacher that I hold the contempt for positive discrimination that I do. Not because I'm discriminated against - but because my female colleagues will be discriminated against in order to get me into a job.
Primary school teaching is a predominantly female-oriented profession. I personally believe that this has stemmed from a stereotype that has evolved over hundreds of years when the little woman was left with the job of looking after and raising the kids - providing them with their only education when there was no state education - whilst the man went out to work. And in previous years (and yes before the snide comment comes along I do realise that it's gramatically incorrect to start a sentence with 'and') men seeking to teach young children have been clearly discriminated against and treated with suspicion since it was stereotypically a woman's job.
However, the government have decided to change this through one of their usual heavy handed 'positive discrimination' projects. Rather than promoting teaching in a primary school as a valid profession for men, and putting in place measures to ensure that men are treated equally, they instead implemented a box-ticking agenda to make sure men end up in primary posts, in order to be able to make the 'it's equal because x% of the non stereotype group is in the job' type statements which are the hallmark of all of their 'equal opportunities' policies.
This has filterered right down to grass roots levels now, all the incentives for teaching in a primary school are geared towards men, and many schools are actively seeking male teachers in order to 'fix' the 'problem' of having 'too many' female staff.
So whilst my female colleagues have to pay their student loan back in full and fight for their first teaching post (as they should have to, and as I should have to - I don't believe in writing off student loans and I don't believe that teaching is a job you should be able to walk into) I might (or a future generation of male trainees might) get my student loan written off, and find that the mere fact that I am male carries significant weight in any teaching posts which I apply for purely because the LEA will be under government pressure to recruit more men - and it could mean that given a difficult choice between myself and a woman, the balance might tip to my favour because it would do more for government targets by appointing me than it would to sway them even further away from them by appointing another woman.
Aswell as finding it professionally embarassing to think that I got a job because of my gender as opposed to my fitness to carry it out, it would also be wrong for a school to expose children to anyone other who they thought was the best person for the job - because this is what happens as soon as you start introducing any level of qualification to discrimination and as long as you have a government introducing legislation and which fosters a culture which claims to remove discrimination but merely transfers discrimination from one group of people to another.
I stand by my original comments.
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
Presumably, you mean 'precisely', rather than 'priceslessly', which doesn't actually mean anything at all.
Indeed I did mean precisely. I can actually spell, I just happened to make one typo. Everyone is allowed one every now and again.
Quote:
What evidence do you have for this allegation? Did you sit in on the appointment boards for these two posts?
Funnily enough, I was waiting for the 'if you weren't there you have no right to comment' line. If that applied to the whole of this forum then virtually nothing would ever get posted on it.
Quote:
No?
Oh, we have an example of the arrogant presumption which you have just accused me of. Double standards? How do you KNOW I wasn't there?
Quote:
Then could it be that you're just another ignorant student tw*t who has plucked these slanderous allegations out of the air.
In my experience, only the PC brigade would suggest that anything I said was 'slanderous'. And to turn your argument around, were YOU involved in the recruitment process for Jane Root and Lorraine Heggesey? How do YOU know that what I suggested didn't happen?
Quote:
Grow up, sonny, and face the facts - women are more often than not the best candidates for all kinds of jobs these days, especially in the creative fields.
Says who? When did it become a fact? Surely whether or not a man or a woman is the best candidate for the job depends on the range of candidates they have, and is linked to their ability to do the job, rather than their gender?
Quote:
Stick to trying to become a primary school teacher - though, please, don't attempt to teach the kids English.
It is precisely because I am training to be a primary school teacher that I hold the contempt for positive discrimination that I do. Not because I'm discriminated against - but because my female colleagues will be discriminated against in order to get me into a job.
Primary school teaching is a predominantly female-oriented profession. I personally believe that this has stemmed from a stereotype that has evolved over hundreds of years when the little woman was left with the job of looking after and raising the kids - providing them with their only education when there was no state education - whilst the man went out to work. And in previous years (and yes before the snide comment comes along I do realise that it's gramatically incorrect to start a sentence with 'and') men seeking to teach young children have been clearly discriminated against and treated with suspicion since it was stereotypically a woman's job.
However, the government have decided to change this through one of their usual heavy handed 'positive discrimination' projects. Rather than promoting teaching in a primary school as a valid profession for men, and putting in place measures to ensure that men are treated equally, they instead implemented a box-ticking agenda to make sure men end up in primary posts, in order to be able to make the 'it's equal because x% of the non stereotype group is in the job' type statements which are the hallmark of all of their 'equal opportunities' policies.
This has filterered right down to grass roots levels now, all the incentives for teaching in a primary school are geared towards men, and many schools are actively seeking male teachers in order to 'fix' the 'problem' of having 'too many' female staff.
So whilst my female colleagues have to pay their student loan back in full and fight for their first teaching post (as they should have to, and as I should have to - I don't believe in writing off student loans and I don't believe that teaching is a job you should be able to walk into) I might (or a future generation of male trainees might) get my student loan written off, and find that the mere fact that I am male carries significant weight in any teaching posts which I apply for purely because the LEA will be under government pressure to recruit more men - and it could mean that given a difficult choice between myself and a woman, the balance might tip to my favour because it would do more for government targets by appointing me than it would to sway them even further away from them by appointing another woman.
Aswell as finding it professionally embarassing to think that I got a job because of my gender as opposed to my fitness to carry it out, it would also be wrong for a school to expose children to anyone other who they thought was the best person for the job - because this is what happens as soon as you start introducing any level of qualification to discrimination and as long as you have a government introducing legislation and which fosters a culture which claims to remove discrimination but merely transfers discrimination from one group of people to another.
I stand by my original comments.
PT
I think she should leave the One o'clock now. 
She's becoming useless and boring (missing autocue and camera angles etc) and doesn't show her real self - i.e Nina Hossain. But thats a whole new thread. 
She's becoming useless and boring (missing autocue and camera angles etc) and doesn't show her real self - i.e Nina Hossain. But thats a whole new thread.