UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

Literally at the point where you're using "yeah, well, you smell".

Not really, just giving you the context since you didn't seem to grasp what I was getting at.

"Fantasies"

Yup.

1. You can be honest, you know. I'm not going to run to the jannies or anything.
2. Explain how they're fantasies, please.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Dissension in the ranks

[Celritannia]

Dissension in the ranks

Saw this on BBC news.
This is beautiful

[Salandriagado]

In good news: it turns out that for the first time in my life, I've got an actually competent MP. I'm beginning to understand how she managed to get 55% of the vote in 2019, despite having "Labour" next to her name.

In bad news: I know this because we've been having a long email conversation about the school reopening advice, and how it's somewhere between "fucking awful" and "borderline abusive", and was clearly written by someone who's never actually seen a five year old.

I'm going to focus on Reception/Year 1 here, because that's where the biggest problems lie.

So, the public-facing advice starts with the following statement (emphasis mine):

We want to get all children back into education as soon as the scientific advice allows because it is the best place for them to learn, and because we know it is good for children’s mental wellbeing to have social interactions with other children, carers and teachers.

Now, ordinarily, those are both true. However, the specific measures being put in place are going to shit all over both of those. I just want you to keep that blatant lie as we go forward. There's just one other mention of the mental wellbeing of children, under "9.4 What about children with mental health issues?", where they pretend that this is going to be some small minority of students, and that these procedures will somehow help those students.

Now, on to the actual measures. These are spectacularly unclear and have changed a frankly ridiculous number of times (and vary between schools due to said lack of clarity), but the main constants are:

1. Smaller class sizes.
2. Classrooms to be individual desks, spaced out, with lunch to be eaten there.
3. Play equipment/toys in the classrooms to not be used unless each child can have their own.
4. All soft furnishings, decorations, etc. removed from classrooms (too hard to sanitise).
5. Segregated play times by class.
6. Staff are to attempt to maintain distance from children wherever possible.
7. Meals to be eaten at their desks.
8. If anybody in a class tests positive (and if they get symptoms, they get tested), the whole class self-isolates for 14 days.

Now, all of these are effective measures to help reduce the spread of the disease, no argument there. However, let's look at this again, from the perspective of a five year old:

1. They turn up at school, all excited to get back to seeing their friends. It turns out their class has been split in half and most of their friends are in the other half. Also, the other half got their normal teacher, so they're being looked after by some adult they've never met before, who's either used to teaching older students or not a teacher at all.
2. They go into the classroom, and it's all changed: all of the decorations have vanished. So have all of the toys that have played a massive part in their education to date (let's not pretend that any school is going to have enough to give each child their own). Rather than sitting in groups with some of their friends, they're sent to sit at a desk on their own, too far away from anybody else to have a private conversation.
3. Rather than playing games and learning social skills, they're handed some worksheets to do.
4. It gets to play time, and none of their friends from the other half of the class are nowhere to be seen.
5. They go back into the classroom for more of the same, and start crying. The adult in the room doesn't come to give them a hug, instead trying ineffectually to reassure them from a distance.
6. That afternoon, someone starts coughing, and the adult looks all panicked and takes them off to the room next door. They don't appear again.
7. Later, their parents get a message saying that the kid who started coughing tested positive, so now you've all got to self-isolate for 14 days and can't go anywhere.

If someone could tell me which part of this is supposed to be anything but utterly traumatic for a five year old, I'd love to hear it. If someone could tell me when any kind of meaningful "social interaction" is supposed to happen, I'd love to hear that, too, for an age group whose whole concept of social interaction is extremely heavily based on physical contact.

And then we come to the claim of this being useful education for them. Now, we'll focus mainly on Reception here, because the EYFS is more accessible and better written (and, because the DfE know that this shit isn't going to work, mostly made toothless for the duration of the pandemic), but there aren't massive differences between 5 and 6 year olds in this regard.

I'm just going to quote the bits that are blatantly incompatible with the above.

Each area of learning and development must be implemented through planned, purposeful play and through a mix of adult-led and child-initiated activity. Play is essential for children’s development, building their confidence as they learn to
explore, to think about problems, and relate to others. Children learn by leading their own play, and by taking part in play which is guided by adults.

How do you get them to play and explore while sitting at a desk 2m from everybody else? I don't know either.

Now, moving on to the details of what they're supposed to be learning:

Moving and handling: children show good control and co-ordination in large and small movements. They move confidently in a range of ways, safely negotiating space. They handle equipment and tools effectively, including pencils for writing.

Sure, you can get the writing bit done, and the "large movements" at playtime, but both are trivial to do at home.

They manage their own basic hygiene and personal needs successfully, including dressing and going to the toilet independently.

This one I brought out just to point something out: one suggestion for schools with limited toilet facilities to follow the "keep groups separate at all times" bit with regards to them: rotas for when various groups are allowed to go to the toilet. This is where I become convinced that they've never been in a room with a five year old: when a five year old wants to go to the toilet, they mean fucking now, not "next time it's our turn on the rota". If anybody actually follows that bullshit suggestion is where this veers from "borderline" and into "straight up abusive".

Self-confidence and self-awareness: children are confident to try new activities, and say why they like some activities more than others. They are confident to speak in a familiar group, will talk about their ideas, and will choose the resources they need for their chosen activities. They say when they do or don’t need help.

How can you do this when there are no new activities to try, when there's no possibility of choosing activities, when the adult in the room is unfamiliar, when they can't choose resources, and when the adult might just not be able to provide help? You fucking don't, is how.

Making relationships: children play co-operatively, taking turns with others. They take account of one another’s ideas about how to organise their activity. They show sensitivity to others’ needs and feelings, and form positive relationships with adults and other children

This one is just explicitly banned.

Exploring and using media and materials: children sing songs, make music and dance, and experiment with ways of changing them. They safely use and explore a variety of materials, tools and techniques, experimenting with colour, design, texture, form and function.

Again, completely out of the question.

Being imaginative: children use what they have learnt about media and materials in original ways, thinking about uses and purposes. They represent their own ideas, thoughts and feelings through design and technology, art, music, dance, role-play and stories.

Well, I guess they could manage a story. Given a suitably trained early-years teacher. Which half of them won't have.

And on to the safeguarding stuff:

Children learn best when they are healthy, safe and secure, when their individual needs are met, and when they have positive relationships with the adults caring for them.

Are children going to feel safe and secure under these circumstances? Are they fuck. Are their needs being met? Clearly not. Are they going to have a positive relationship with this adult that they've never met before who's telling them that they can't play with their friends? The mere suggestion is absurd.

Providers must train all staff to understand their safeguarding policy and procedures, and ensure that all staff have up to date knowledge of safeguarding issues. Training made available by the provider must enable staff to identify signs
of possible abuse and neglect at the earliest opportunity, and to respond in a timely and appropriate way. These may include:
• significant changes in children's behaviour

Is anybody under the impression that this won't apply to literally every child?

Each child must be assigned a key person. Their role is to help ensure that every child’s care is tailored to meet their individual needs (in accordance with paragraph 1.10), to help the child become familiar with the setting, offer a settled
relationship for the child and build a relationship with their parents.

Note that half of them will be unable to even see their key person (always their class teacher in reception).

Providers must also ensure that there is an area where staff may talk to parents and/or carers confidentially

How do you have a confidential conversation outside in public from 2m away, exactly?


More to the point, for the argument to hold up, schools don't just need to do something to help childrens' mental health and education (which they don't): they need to do it better than alternative options. Now, there certainly are children who are in shitty enough situations, family-wise, that these are actually better than staying at home. Those kids should probably come into school (although many of these measures can be eased up a little, with the far lower numbers involved, as they have been for the children already in school). The rest, though? Which part of this is better for them than allowing them to play with some small number of selected friends outside?

---

So, yeah. Fuck all education is going to happen, and the whole thing is pretty well perfectly designed to entirely fuck up childrens' mental health. Can we drop the bullshit, stop pretending that this is for their benefit, and admit that they're being sent back purely to get their parents back to work, now?




And just to note that this isn't entirely coming out of my arse: I'm a qualified mental health first aider, with a paediatric specialisation, and since the lockdown started, I've had a standing offer out to all of our Beaver/Cub parents to provide help to their children (originally over Zoom, then later in parks). Of the kids who've been in school (mostly older than these, and all under much fewer restrictions), I've had tear-filled Zoom calls with every single one. That compares to a total of 4 out of 50-odd for those not in school.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Okay i will.


Your fetish of Norman bashing isnt fun and is actually quite harmful. Because you are literally imagining shit out of thin air

Would you say the same thing about people who complain about billionaires? It's much the same, but I bet you wouldn't.

No because Billionaires can genuinely fuck people over, because you know, they are real.

Your fantasy about an overarching ultra evil Norman Aristocracy that controls everything is not, and comes from nothing more than a hate boner over the fact the Normans defeated the Anglo Saxons in 1066. It is utterly fucking deluded just like your notion Northumbria is gona become an independent country and will just annex lands around it because reasons.

[Ifreann]

Dissension in the ranks

Social media interns shifting the bantz into high gear.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

Would you say the same thing about people who complain about billionaires? It's much the same, but I bet you wouldn't.

No because Billionaires can genuinely fuck people over, because you know, they are real.

Your fantasy about an overarching ultra evil Norman Aristocracy that controls everything is not, and comes from nothing more than a hate boner over the fact the Normans defeated the Anglo Saxons in 1066. It is utterly fucking deluded just like your notion Northumbria is gona become an independent country and will just annex lands around it because reasons.

So is the control of this country by a group that seized control in 1066.

I don't think they control everything. I do, however, think they have control over the things the establishment does (them being synonymous with the establishment) and could certainly at least try to do a Harry Perkins. I'm not a Northumbrian nationalist anymore, just an English nationalist. It's not a "hate boner" to want the people of this country to be in charge.

[The Huskar Social Union]

No because Billionaires can genuinely fuck people over, because you know, they are real.

Your fantasy about an overarching ultra evil Norman Aristocracy that controls everything is not, and comes from nothing more than a hate boner over the fact the Normans defeated the Anglo Saxons in 1066. It is utterly fucking deluded just like your notion Northumbria is gona become an independent country and will just annex lands around it because reasons.

So is the control of this country by a group that seized control in 1066.

I don't think they control everything. I do, however, think they have control over the things the establishment does (them being synonymous with the establishment) and could certainly at least try to do a Harry Perkins. I'm not a Northumbrian nationalist anymore, just an English nationalist. It's not a "hate boner" to want the people of this country to be in charge.

They are not in control. The people who run your country are your country's citizens. So your "want the people of this country to be in charge" has already been met.

Also good well done, you dropped one delusion, drop this one too. Now im done entertaining your nonsense today.

[The New California Republic]

You can be honest, you know. I'm not going to run to the jannies or anything.

I'm not going stoop to handholding you through trying to understand why I found it funny. I gave you an explanation, and if you still don't grasp why I found it funny then just deal with it.

Explain how they're fantasies, please.

No because this thread isn't being turned into a platform for you to discuss your aforementioned fantasies.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

You can be honest, you know. I'm not going to run to the jannies or anything.

I'm not going stoop to handholding you through trying to understand why I found it funny. I gave you an explanation, and if you still don't grasp why I found it funny then just deal with it.

Explain how they're fantasies, please.

No because this thread isn't being turned into a platform for you to discuss your aforementioned fantasies.

Handholding me? No, I'm just asking you to be honest.

and lol "I can't", to think you accused me of lying about stuff because I didn't have half a dozen peer-reviewed articles backing it up

[The New California Republic]

Handholding me? No, I'm just asking you to be honest.

Oh I was, you just didn't get it. Went right over your head so it did.

Now im done entertaining your nonsense today.

You and me both.

[The New California Republic]

Dissension in the ranks

Someone had to fall on their sword to post that.

F

[Celritannia]

For anyone that missed it, or just want to have another good ol' guffaw.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Tony Blair is on the BBC, he has lost a lot of weight, he looks ill.

[Shamhnan Insir]

Boris is backing Cummings. Interesting choice.

I'm genuinely stunned.

I had expected some recognition of the gravity of the situation; even if he was reluctant to let Cummings go, there could be an independent investigation, temporary suspension with or without pay, anything.

Giving a press conference where the PM's position is "I believe that in every respect he has acted responsibly and legally and with integrity and with the overwhelming aim of stopping the spread of the virus and saving lives" is staggering.

He looks a bit tired, doesn't he. If he held any other job, he likely would still be resting and recuperating at home after such a serious illness.

That his judgement seriously seems even more Weebly than normal might help explain the following two graphs:





https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index ... l-ratings/

I'm in the same boat Arch. Has not a single one of them given this situation any real thought?

[The New California Republic]

For anyone that missed it, or just want to have another good ol' guffaw.

[Celritannia]

For anyone that missed it, or just want to have another good ol' guffaw.

He doesn't even take into consideration the millions living in blocks of flats that have to maintain the rules of the lockdown.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

Handholding me? No, I'm just asking you to be honest.

Oh I was, you just didn't get it. Went right over your head so it did.

Now im done entertaining your nonsense today.

You and me both.

I'm not Scottish, so no I don't know Scottish slang terms what a surprise, but you clarified for me. Still doesn't distract from the fact that your point was, essentially, "haha u smell".

"i'm not going to entertain your NONSENSE! shut up! you smell!"

(still didn't explain how it's a fantasy but i suppose just ignoring it is a better strategy for you than admitting what you said was "bs")

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Boris Johnson goes before the Commons Liaison Committee on Wednesday - I'll bet they will have a good few questions about Cummings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52774704

He must be really certain that no proof can come to light that Cummings made other breaches of the lockdown or he is taking a massive risk.

[Celritannia]

Boris Johnson goes before the Commons Liaison Committee on Wednesday - I'll bet they will have a good few questions about Cummings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52774704

He must be really certain that no proof can come to light that Cummings made other breaches of the lockdown or he is taking a massive risk.

Fantastic news!

[The New California Republic]

Snip

Now im done entertaining your nonsense today.

You and me both.

[The New California Republic]

Boris Johnson goes before the Commons Liaison Committee on Wednesday - I'll bet they will have a good few questions about Cummings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52774704

He must be really certain that no proof can come to light that Cummings made other breaches of the lockdown or he is taking a massive risk.

Ooh juicy.

[Gormwood]

Two Anglocentric countries in the West led by blonde muppets fumbling their response to a pandemic and thrashing about in nepotism like an infant in the diving pool. What a timeline.

[Shamhnan Insir]

Two Anglocentric countries in the West led by blonde muppets fumbling their response to a pandemic and thrashing about in nepotism like an infant in the diving pool. What a timeline.

Good whisky still exists, so for now this timeline is tolerable. FOR NOW....

[The New California Republic]

Two Anglocentric countries in the West led by blonde muppets fumbling their response to a pandemic and thrashing about in nepotism like an infant in the diving pool. What a timeline.

Good whisky still exists, so for now this timeline is tolerable. FOR NOW....

...distilleries are converting production to produce hand sanitiser, so...