Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Not quite according to the beeb report on it. The case was around whether it was biased or not, it clearly is, and as such should it be shown in schools without information from the sceptics camp to balance it. The Judge decided that provided guidlines were issued with the film to include the opposing viewpoints it could still be shown. The "technical innacuracies" are actually some of the points that the two sides disagree on and there is no firm conclusion as to whether they are innacurate or not.
I agree - A judge on Wednesday ruled that Steven Spielberg's award winning docufiction "Schindler's List" should only be shown in schools with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.
High Court judge Michael Burton's decision follows legal action brought by a father of two last month claiming the director's film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush.
About global warming of course I have heard that argument many times. It is nothing but a subjective intuition. There is no logic or knowledge supporting it. No one knows anywhere near enough about the the magnitude and history of the universe to give even a plausibility argument for that case. As for the cosmological constant, that is nothing but an artificial scientific construct; you can't base theological arguments on that.
I have no problem with them showing evolution videos or global warming videos as long as they are objective and allow other viewpoints. So, anytime they want to show an evolution video, they have to also show an intelligent design video so that the students can understand that there are other valid viewpoints.
Denying Aids, denying Aids drugs, having a health minister who says it can be cured with garlic and beetroot. Wake up!!!!
He complicit in Zimbabwe and the halving of life expectancy.
HIV is SA's greatest killer, Mugabe is responsible for that.
Please, if you want to argue politics get your facts right and don't fall into the trap of attacking me instead of my arguments.
Just trying to understnd your point of view. I don't think you can hold Mbeki responsible for the halving of the life expectancy in Zimbabwe. Thats like blaming Gordon Brown for any mistakes Sarkozy makes just because their countries are located in a similar geographical location IMHO.
I presume when you say HIV is SA's greatest killer and Mugabe is responsible you actually meant Mbeki? I agree that his rolling out of treatments has been poor but to say he is responsible for a nations culture/apprach to safe sex etc is somewhat naieve I would suggest.
Wrong. SA is a country with an abundance of cheap labour. Note 35% unemployment! The reasons for Mbeki not criticising Mugabe is complicated but largely stem from Mugabe's support of Mbeki during his time in exile.
I don't think there is a pool of highly skilled cheap labour, the unemployment in SA is mostly unskilled. SA is benefitting.
Re the Mbeki and Mugabee alliance, it is honour between murderers. Not that complicated.
They benefit from the skilled people who are very capable and are the ones leaving, and the pool of very cheap labour.
Wrong. SA is a country with an abundance of cheap labour. Note 35% unemployment! The reasons for Mbeki not criticising Mugabe is complicated but largely stem from Mugabe's support of Mbeki during his time in exile.
How does South Africa benefit? From what I read there is already 35% unemplyment in SA and now there are an additional 3 million and counting illegal immigrants crossing the border with little hope for much of a future.
They benefit from the skilled people who are very capable and are the ones leaving, and the pool of very cheap labour.
SA is one of those places the BBC and the 'Independent' are not willing to criticise, from what I can see the whole marxist brothers in arms cause is being supported by this. And ask yourself this, if the immigrants are causing such a problem for SA why doesn't Mbeki do / say something. He won't.
Shame on you - you may think Fisk twitters, but you said he had blamed Israel and the US for 9/11. Untrue. So you remembered incorrectly and he is not important? The truth is important.
As for Zimbabwe and North Korea. I expect I understand them as well as you do.
Not necessarily untrue and I don't need to be 'shamed on' by you. I just can't be arsed looking for it.
If you do truly understand them, stop posting the other trash then and write something that shows that you do have a grip of politics (one not gained from the 'Independent')
Similarly South Africa still benefits from the crisis in Zimbabwe, but again it's just not sexy.
How does South Africa benefit? From what I read there is already 35% unemplyment in SA and now there are an additional 3 million and counting illegal immigrants crossing the border with little hope for much of a future.
Leave a comment: