RugbyRebels

canta_brian wrote:Maybe provide a source?

Scroll back a page or 2 and it's from a Twitter feed Donny posted by someone trying to defend the police by saying racism isn't a problem because reasons. And you should believe me because I'm a minority. Oh, and I know this is unpopular, but...

Stom wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Digby wrote:
Homicides involving the police are stupidly high in the USA, indeed there's simply far too much brutality from the police in the USA. And one of the things which might come out of this is for a number of people to reconsider what they expect from a public service intended to keep them safe, even if they are a white racist because they shouldn't be assuming the police are no threat to them, the numbers don't suggest anyone can assume they're safe when interacting with the police. No question it's a disproportionate outcome, and that one would hope will be more fully addressed finally, but we'd be skirting over the grief of a lot of white families to suggest white privilege will protect you from the police

Don't know how accurate these are

For every 10, 000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed by the police.

For every 10, 000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed by the police.

In 2019, 49 unarmed people were killed by the police. 9 were black. 19 were white.
The likelihood for a black person being shot by the police is as high as being struck by lightning.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

They are the most cherrypicked stats in the history of cherrypicking.

And if 49 unarmed people are killed by the police, and 28 were white or black, that means Hispanics and Asians are in serious danger!

The last time I saw a breakdown on stats there were possibly a worrying number of people assigned to a group called unknown, at least my best recollection is it was called unknown. And it seems like there shouldn't be so many dead people they can't even assign a race to, unless maybe they think it's a polite term for mixed race, which I suppose would be one way to reduce the figures for crimes against the black population. I don't discount levels of ineptness such they kill people and then lose the body before there's an autopsy, and even don't make any basic collection of evidence to assign a race after they have lost the body.

Research is a bit limited, but here you go:

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1261

https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/dir ... 53-pub.pdf

Key points from initial glance:

If you are a young black man, the risk of being shot by the police is non-trivial.

In Philadelphia, White Police officers are less likely to shoot black men than their black or hispanic counterparts.

And another:

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

We did not find evidence for anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity in police use of force across all shootings, and, if anything, found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime. While racial disparity did vary by type of shooting, no one type of shooting showed significant anti-Black or -Hispanic disparity. The uncertainty around these estimates highlights the need for more data before drawing conclusions about disparities in specific types of shootings.

Stom wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Maybe provide a source?

Scroll back a page or 2 and it's from a Twitter feed Donny posted by someone trying to defend the police by saying racism isn't a problem because reasons. And you should believe me because I'm a minority. Oh, and I know this is unpopular, but...

Hahaha sure Stom, you know it better than a man who has been persecuted his whole life for the colour of his skin, a man who's lived experience gives him a first hand in depth understanding of the link between prejudice and violence; well done, it's not everyday someone falls over themselves to fit a stereotype quite so successfully.

If you're going to give out about cherry picking, maybe try and read an entire post before commenting on it?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Take one good look at our PM

That is a horrible thing to suggest to anyone.

Puja

Strong medicine.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Which makes bleating in about class seem a bit antiquated.

Take one good look at our PM and repeat that.

And if that isn't convincing, try this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52982440

or this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/clas ... -stagnates

Theresa May
John Major

Both from very humble backgrounds who made it to the top. Both grammar school kids.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Which makes bleating in about class seem a bit antiquated.

Take one good look at our PM and repeat that.

And if that isn't convincing, try this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52982440

or this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/clas ... -stagnates

Theresa May
John Major

Both from very humble backgrounds who made it to the top. Both grammar school kids.

Cool. Out of how many?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Take one good look at our PM and repeat that.

And if that isn't convincing, try this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52982440

or this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/clas ... -stagnates

Theresa May
John Major

Both from very humble backgrounds who made it to the top. Both grammar school kids.

Cool. Out of how many?

Puja

Off the top of my head-
Gordon Brown
Margaret Thatcher
Jim Callaghan
Ted Heath
Harold Wilson


Oddly Clem Atlee went to Haileybury.

Sandydragon wrote:And another:

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

We did not find evidence for anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity in police use of force across all shootings, and, if anything, found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime. While racial disparity did vary by type of shooting, no one type of shooting showed significant anti-Black or -Hispanic disparity. The uncertainty around these estimates highlights the need for more data before drawing conclusions about disparities in specific types of shootings.

I'm curious as to why you didn't read the methodology or the correction added post-acceptance for publication. They modeled ethnicity, they didn't sample it:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/16/9127


PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES Correction for “Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings,” by David J. Johnson, Trevor Tress, Nicole Burkel, Carley Taylor, and Joseph Cesario, which was first published July 22, 2019; 10.1073/pnas.1903856116 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 15877–15882).

The authors wish to note the following: “Recently, we published a report showing that, among civilians fatally shot, officer race did not predict civilian race and there was no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities (1). Specifically, we estimated the probability that a civilian was Black, Hispanic, or White given that a person was fatally shot and some covariates. The dataset contains only information about individuals fatally shot by police, and the race of the individual is predicted by a set of variables. Thus, we compute Pr(race|shot, X) where X is a set of variables including officer race.

“Although we were clear about the quantity we estimated and provide justification for calculating Pr(race|shot, X) in our report (see also 2, 3), we want to correct a sentence in our significance statement that has been quoted by others stating ‘White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.’ This sentence refers to estimating Pr(shot|race, X). As we estimated Pr(race|shot, X), this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text.

“We appreciate the feedback that led us to clarify this sentence (4). To be clear, this issue does not invalidate the findings with regards to Pr(race|shot, X) discussed in the report.”


And I'm calling bullshit on the Philly thing. That is not what is happening on the ground. Philadelphia has a history of covering up for police brutality. e.g. bombing a residential neighbourhood during a standoff with MOVE and holding back the fire department to let them burn.

Sorry mate, but you are all kinds of wrong here. The cops are rotten at their core.

Pursuant to my previous post, the published study in question is making the point that, all variable being equal, ethnicity should not be a risk factor in the probability of getting killed by police, but in actual fact it is. It draws attention to the inadequacies of current modeling.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:And another:

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

We did not find evidence for anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity in police use of force across all shootings, and, if anything, found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime. While racial disparity did vary by type of shooting, no one type of shooting showed significant anti-Black or -Hispanic disparity. The uncertainty around these estimates highlights the need for more data before drawing conclusions about disparities in specific types of shootings.

I'm curious as to why you didn't read the methodology or the correction added post-acceptance for publication. They modeled ethnicity, they didn't sample it:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/16/9127


PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES Correction for “Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings,” by David J. Johnson, Trevor Tress, Nicole Burkel, Carley Taylor, and Joseph Cesario, which was first published July 22, 2019; 10.1073/pnas.1903856116 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 15877–15882).

The authors wish to note the following: “Recently, we published a report showing that, among civilians fatally shot, officer race did not predict civilian race and there was no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities (1). Specifically, we estimated the probability that a civilian was Black, Hispanic, or White given that a person was fatally shot and some covariates. The dataset contains only information about individuals fatally shot by police, and the race of the individual is predicted by a set of variables. Thus, we compute Pr(race|shot, X) where X is a set of variables including officer race.

“Although we were clear about the quantity we estimated and provide justification for calculating Pr(race|shot, X) in our report (see also 2, 3), we want to correct a sentence in our significance statement that has been quoted by others stating ‘White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.’ This sentence refers to estimating Pr(shot|race, X). As we estimated Pr(race|shot, X), this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text.

“We appreciate the feedback that led us to clarify this sentence (4). To be clear, this issue does not invalidate the findings with regards to Pr(race|shot, X) discussed in the report.”


And I'm calling bullshit on the Philly thing. That is not what is happening on the ground. Philadelphia has a history of covering up for police brutality. e.g. bombing a residential neighbourhood during a standoff with MOVE and holding back the fire department to let them burn.

Sorry mate, but you are all kinds of wrong here. The cops are rotten at their core.

Feel free to provide additional research, considering the nature of the topic, theres not that much of it. And in terms of balance, one of the report I linked below is more critical of the police.

The Philadelphia MOVE bombing was when exactly? Mid 1980s? I'd suggest that isn't an accurate representation of modern reality. You point out the methodology in research when it suits you but jus try bullshit when you don't like the content of another report. Thats double standards. Is there an alternative report you can cite regarding Philadelphia?

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:And another:

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

I'm curious as to why you didn't read the methodology or the correction added post-acceptance for publication. They modeled ethnicity, they didn't sample it:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/16/9127


PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES Correction for “Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings,” by David J. Johnson, Trevor Tress, Nicole Burkel, Carley Taylor, and Joseph Cesario, which was first published July 22, 2019; 10.1073/pnas.1903856116 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 15877–15882).

The authors wish to note the following: “Recently, we published a report showing that, among civilians fatally shot, officer race did not predict civilian race and there was no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities (1). Specifically, we estimated the probability that a civilian was Black, Hispanic, or White given that a person was fatally shot and some covariates. The dataset contains only information about individuals fatally shot by police, and the race of the individual is predicted by a set of variables. Thus, we compute Pr(race|shot, X) where X is a set of variables including officer race.

“Although we were clear about the quantity we estimated and provide justification for calculating Pr(race|shot, X) in our report (see also 2, 3), we want to correct a sentence in our significance statement that has been quoted by others stating ‘White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.’ This sentence refers to estimating Pr(shot|race, X). As we estimated Pr(race|shot, X), this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text.

“We appreciate the feedback that led us to clarify this sentence (4). To be clear, this issue does not invalidate the findings with regards to Pr(race|shot, X) discussed in the report.”


And I'm calling bullshit on the Philly thing. That is not what is happening on the ground. Philadelphia has a history of covering up for police brutality. e.g. bombing a residential neighbourhood during a standoff with MOVE and holding back the fire department to let them burn.

Sorry mate, but you are all kinds of wrong here. The cops are rotten at their core.

Feel free to provide additional research, considering the nature of the topic, theres not that much of it. And in terms of balance, one of the report I linked below is more critical of the police.

The Philadelphia MOVE bombing was when exactly? Mid 1980s? I'd suggest that isn't an accurate representation of modern reality. You point out the methodology in research when it suits you but jus try bullshit when you don't like the content of another report. Thats double standards. Is there an alternative report you can cite regarding Philadelphia?

Yeah. Living there. Nothing much has changed since 1619. That's kind of the point. Peace.

Donny osmond wrote:

Stom wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Maybe provide a source?

Scroll back a page or 2 and it's from a Twitter feed Donny posted by someone trying to defend the police by saying racism isn't a problem because reasons. And you should believe me because I'm a minority. Oh, and I know this is unpopular, but...

Hahaha sure Stom, you know it better than a man who has been persecuted his whole life for the colour of his skin, a man who's lived experience gives him a first hand in depth understanding of the link between prejudice and violence; well done, it's not everyday someone falls over themselves to fit a stereotype quite so successfully.

If you're going to give out about cherry picking, maybe try and read an entire post before commenting on it?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny, there are certain tactics used to "win" an argument. They're generally used by people who don't want to upset the apple cart for some reason. People have many reasons for this and that's fine.

But this guy signposted these tactics so hard you could see them from space. And it's important to acknowledge that.

Tactics like using statistics that paint the picture you want to paint, framing your argument as an unfortunate truth, claiming that because you fit the group who have been disadvantaged but you don't shout about it, your opinion should count more...

Like, for instance, the Chancellor. He belongs to an ethnic minority group, so he's probably experienced racism in his life. But he was educated at Winchester and Oxford, so he's pretty privileged. Would he have more right than me to talk about problems effecting people closer to my reality growing up than his reality just because his skin is closer in colour?

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Theresa May
John Major

Both from very humble backgrounds who made it to the top. Both grammar school kids.

Cool. Out of how many?

Puja

Off the top of my head-
Gordon Brown
Margaret Thatcher
Jim Callaghan
Ted Heath
Harold Wilson


Oddly Clem Atlee went to Haileybury.

Depends on how far back you go. Ramsey MacDOnald was the PM from the most deprived background. Not a lot of point going back ot the 19th century or even before WWI IMO as the UK was very different.

Johnson - private education
May - Grammar School
Cameron - Private education
Brown - State school with accelerated learning
Blair - Private education
Major - Grammar School
Thatcher - Grammar School
Callaghan - Grammer school
Wilson - Grammar School
Heath - Grammar School
Wilson - Grammar School
Douglas-home - Private
MacMillan - Private
Eden - Private
Churchill - Private
Attlee - Private

Strong grammar school influence there for many years.

Stom wrote: there are certain tactics used to "win" an argument.

Reliably not used on here

Fatal force in Philadelphia-

A Report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 1 5
By the Community Lawyering Clinic Kline School of Law,
Drexel University



Philadelphia has particularly acute issues involving shootings of people of color by the police and is a valuable case
study of the accuracy of the United States’ claims of vigilance at the local level. When police shootings rose
dramatically in 2012, exceeding other urban centers like Houston, New York, and Chicago, the city requested
technical assistance from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS Office) through the Collaborative Reform Initiative. The DOJ did a rigorous investigation of the
Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) and made 91 recommendations for reforms to the PPD policies, practices,
and training.5 While Philadelphia is attempting to implement some of those recommendations, it looks to be an
uphill battle. As exemplified by the recent shooting of Brandon Tate Brown, the United States still has a long road
ahead to meet its obligations under ICERD.

Recent statistics compiled by the PPD reveal an astounding correlation between the lethal use of force by police
and race or ethnicity. Between 2007 and 2014, police officers shot at 394 civilians; 90% of those were either
African-American or Latino.6 Although African Americans only make up 44.1% of the population in Philadelphia,
they are 80% of those shot at by police.7 Moreover, shootings by police officers hit their peak in 2012, a year when
the rate of violent crimes and shootings of police officers dropped.

The story of Brandon-Tate-Brown, a 26-year-old African American man, illustrates many of the deficiencies with
police oversight and accountability highlighted above. On December 2014, after a routine traffic stop in the early
morning hours, a police office shot and killed Brandon Tate-Brown.21 Officers Nicholas Carelli and Hang Deng,
new recruits who had only been on the force for a year and half, initially alleged that, after a physical altercation
with police, one of the officers shot Brandon in the back of the head when he ran to the passenger side door and
reached into the passenger side of the vehicle for the gun.22 The District Attorney decided not to prosecute Officers
Carelli and Deng, stating that surveillance tapes, four witnesses, ballistics evidence and DNA results supported the
original story of the two officers.23
After the officers were absolved, evidence obtained through a lawsuit brought by Tanya Brown-Dickerson,
Brandon’s mother, raised considerable doubt about key details of the officers’ story.24 A surveillance video of the
shooting revealed that Officer Carelli did not shoot Brandon as he reached into the passenger side of his car.25
Rather he shot Brandon when he was at the rear of his car – with no immediate access to the inside of the car or the
gun.26 Additionally, an officer who was at the scene also told the Internal Affairs Division that he moved Brandon’s
dead body.27
Particularly alarming is that fact that the PPD had access to all of this evidence from the very beginning of the
investigation.28 Still the officers were allowed to give false information to the public and the District Attorney.29
After the evidence was uncovered, in the course of trial preparation, Police Commissioner Ramsey was forced to
admit to the false information given by his officers.30 Even with this knowledge, District Attorney Williams decided
not to prosecute the officers.31 Officers Carelli and Deng received no significant disciplinary action.32 Their only
sanction was being put on desk duty for roughly three months through the course of the internal investigation.33
This case exemplifies the United States’ failure to adopt the CERD Committee’s concluding observations.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Theresa May
John Major

Both from very humble backgrounds who made it to the top. Both grammar school kids.

Cool. Out of how many?

Puja

Off the top of my head-
Gordon Brown
Margaret Thatcher
Jim Callaghan
Ted Heath
Harold Wilson

Oddly Clem Atlee went to Haileybury.

Surprised anyone seriously wanted to contend this, but here goes:

Prime ministers since 1900, with school, type of school, number of years as PM:

Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Eton College, Private School, 2 years
Arthur Balfour, Eton College, Private School, 3 years
Henry Campbell-Bannerman, High School of Glasgow, Private School, 3 years
H. H. Asquith, City of London School, Private School, 8 years
David Lloyd George, Llanystumdwy National School, Local School, 6 years
Bonar Law, High School of Glasgow, Private School, 1 year
Stanley Baldwin, Harrow School, Private School, 7 years
Ramsay MacDonald, Drainie Parish School, Local School, 7 years
Neville Chamberlain, Rugby School, Private School, 3 years
Winston Churchill, Harrow School, Private School, 9 years
Clement Attlee, Haileybury College, Private School, 6 years
Anthony Eden, Eton College, Private School, 2 years
Harold Macmillan, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Alec Douglas-Home, Eton College, Private School, 1 year
Harold Wilson, Royds Hall Grammar School, Grammar School, 8 years
Edward Heath, Chatham House Grammar School, Grammar School, 4 years
James Callaghan, Northern Secondary School, Portsmouth, Grammar School, 3 years
Margaret Thatcher, Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School, Grammar School, 11 years
John Major, Rutlish School, Grammar School, 7 years
Tony Blair, Fettes College, Private School, 10 years
Gordon Brown, Kirkcaldy High School, Grammar School/Selective High School, 3 years
David Cameron, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Theresa May, Holton Park Girls' Grammar School, Grammar School, 3 years
Boris Johnson, Eton College, Private School, 1 year

In summary:
Private Schools: 15 PMs over 68 years, ie 56.7% of the time
Grammar Schools: 8 PMs over 39 years, ie 32.5% of the time
Non-selective Schools: 2 PMs over 13 years, ie 10.8% of the time

And this is for a country where the educational split of children is:
Private Schools: 7%
Grammar Schools: 5%
Non-selective Schools: 88%

Can anyone look at this and claim there is no class problem in this country?

Or, looked at another way, lots of people who had the benefit of private education, followed by a period where grammar school children help sway overwhelmingly, which then tailed off again recently and will probably not be repeated due to the closure of afore-mentioned grammar schools.

I refer you to my post below on education standards in the UK being the key to breaking down any class issues.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Cool. Out of how many?

Puja

Off the top of my head-
Gordon Brown
Margaret Thatcher
Jim Callaghan
Ted Heath
Harold Wilson

Oddly Clem Atlee went to Haileybury.

Surprised anyone seriously wanted to contend this, but here goes:

Prime ministers since 1900, with school, type of school, number of years as PM:

Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Eton College, Private School, 2 years
Arthur Balfour, Eton College, Private School, 3 years
Henry Campbell-Bannerman, High School of Glasgow, Private School, 3 years
H. H. Asquith, City of London School, Private School, 8 years
David Lloyd George, Llanystumdwy National School, Local School, 6 years
Bonar Law, High School of Glasgow, Private School, 1 year
Stanley Baldwin, Harrow School, Private School, 7 years
Ramsay MacDonald, Drainie Parish School, Local School, 7 years
Neville Chamberlain, Rugby School, Private School, 3 years
Winston Churchill, Harrow School, Private School, 9 years
Clement Attlee, Haileybury College, Private School, 6 years
Anthony Eden, Eton College, Private School, 2 years
Harold Macmillan, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Alec Douglas-Home, Eton College, Private School, 1 year
Harold Wilson, Royds Hall Grammar School, Grammar School, 8 years
Edward Heath, Chatham House Grammar School, Grammar School, 4 years
James Callaghan, Northern Secondary School, Portsmouth, Grammar School, 3 years
Margaret Thatcher, Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School, Grammar School, 11 years
John Major, Rutlish School, Grammar School, 7 years
Tony Blair, Fettes College, Private School, 10 years
Gordon Brown, Kirkcaldy High School, Grammar School/Selective High School, 3 years
David Cameron, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Theresa May, Holton Park Girls' Grammar School, Grammar School, 3 years
Boris Johnson, Eton College, Private School, 1 year

In summary:
Private Schools: 15 PMs over 68 years, ie 56.7% of the time
Grammar Schools: 8 PMs over 39 years, ie 32.5% of the time
Non-selective Schools: 2 PMs over 13 years, ie 10.8% of the time

And this is for a country where the educational split of children is:
Private Schools: 7%
Grammar Schools: 5%
Non-selective Schools: 88%

Can anyone look at this and claim there is no class problem in this country?

He wanted examples, He got them. I made no contention. Since the second world war the story is much more about mobility with (39 years out of 75, and since the 60's even better- with Blair spoiling it all ), though the number of grammar schools has declined hugely since the 60's from 1300 to 163 now (is your 5% based on that?).

Or taken through the lens of the World Wars being great levellers, from the end of the Second World War, over the last 75 years:

Winston Churchill, Harrow School, Private School, 3.5 years
Clement Attlee, Haileybury College, Private School, 6 years
Anthony Eden, Eton College, Private School, 2 years
Harold Macmillan, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Alec Douglas-Home, Eton College, Private School, 1 year
Harold Wilson, Royds Hall Grammar School, Grammar School, 8 years
Edward Heath, Chatham House Grammar School, Grammar School, 4 years
James Callaghan, Northern Secondary School, Portsmouth, Grammar School, 3 years
Margaret Thatcher, Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School, Grammar School, 11 years
John Major, Rutlish School, Grammar School, 7 years
Tony Blair, Fettes College, Private School, 10 years
Gordon Brown, Kirkcaldy High School, Grammar School/Selective High School, 3 years
David Cameron, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Theresa May, Holton Park Girls' Grammar School, Grammar School, 3 years
Boris Johnson, Eton College, Private School, 1 year

Privately educated - 35.5 years
Grammar (or similar) 39.5 years

No one from a normal comprehensive (including Brown who was on a different programme) has made it to PM, despite the fact that children from those schools are now of an age where you would expect them to be making an impression.

Its not about class bias, it's all about education.

Sandydragon wrote:No one from a normal comprehensive (including Brown who was on a different programme) has made it to PM, despite the fact that children from those schools are now of an age where you would expect them to be making an impression.

Its not about class bias, it's all about education.

Is that last sentence supposed to be sarcastic?

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:No one from a normal comprehensive (including Brown who was on a different programme) has made it to PM, despite the fact that children from those schools are now of an age where you would expect them to be making an impression.

Its not about class bias, it's all about education.

Is that last sentence supposed to be sarcastic?

Partially. We used to take bright children and put them into grammar schools where they would be expected to succeed. Now we keep them in with the less academic and expect far less.

with a good education, plus the expectation and role models, plus the opportunities in the extra-curricular sense, a child from a poor background can do very well.

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:No one from a normal comprehensive (including Brown who was on a different programme) has made it to PM, despite the fact that children from those schools are now of an age where you would expect them to be making an impression.

Its not about class bias, it's all about education.

Is that last sentence supposed to be sarcastic?

Partially. We used to take bright children and put them into grammar schools where they would be expected to succeed. Now we keep them in with the less academic and expect far less.

with a good education, plus the expectation and role models, plus the opportunities in the extra-curricular sense, a child from a poor background can do very well.

As I pointed out...

At the school I was at, they took kids from poor backgrounds. Of those kids, I know one of them has gone on to run a store and be a well thought of graffiti artist, so he's done something. The rest...are working menial jobs, just like they would have if they'd gone to a standard school.

So did that "better education" benefit them? Or did their social status count for much more?