The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
CNAA degrees were not exclusive to polys.
You are probably right about the practice but the requirements for a HND (the original scheme, not the current imposter wearing the same badge) did not apparently even include any work experience let alone the student being an apprentice. (Conditions of award are printed on the back of the certificate).
The message from DJC contains these words:
I can only speak from my own experience but the college I attended as a student apprentice (Staffordshire College of Technology) introduced CNAA degrees (as a replacement for LU External degrees*) during the time I was there, most probably during 1964 or 1965.
SCOT became a poly on its way to becoming part of a university but that wasn't until a decade or more later.
*I wouldn't want to give the impression I am more learned than I am. I do not have a LU external degree (reputedly the hardest way to obtain a degree qualification in postwar Britain), only a HND and an elaborate certificate (of absolutely no practical significance) telling me I had been elected "an Associate of the Staffordshire College of Technology" following a further years study. (That qualification was originally going to be called a College Diploma in Mechanical Engineering - a CDM - but then along came Cadburys with their advertising campaign handing out CDMs to all and sundry and the college had to do a quick rethink).The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
But I am recollecting instances from my past and while it is always possible that my informant was misinformed from what has been said so far it is still possible that the external assessment of university degrees is something that followed the introduction of the Council for National Academic Awards (which is where my information dates from) rather than being a historic relic from an earlier time.
The you should have been more careful with your language. You are quite old enough to appreciate the distinction between not telling the truth and making an incorrect statement.
No. I've never been spat at by youngsters in shopping centres. I did get mugged a few weeks back for the first time ever. However, that does not make a crime wave. I prefer the BCS statistics to those compiled on the experiences of a single person.
Firstly, reported crime continues to rise in many areas, as the police continue to record more crime and people continue to trust them more to do so. Secondly, the BCS, partly for the reasons suggested, does not use recorded crime figures at all and includes crimes that have not been reported.
Thirdly when I did get mugged, I was amazed to find the police taking it very seriously indeed. After an area search for an hour, they interviewed me at home for about an hour or so, attempting to get all the details they could. Then, a day or two later, a special street crime unit came to my place of work and showed me lots of photographs, to glean a better description or even identify suspects. They then told me that they were linking it with several other robberies, as those descriptions matched. Finally, I even got contacted by the victim support unit, who offered to keep me in touch with the enquiry and offer counselling.
Absolutely wrong. You don't know what the British Crime Survey is, do you?
Christian.
I was. I said 'not true' rather than 'you are not telling the truth'. There is a big difference. You assumed the second and I did not intend you to make that assumption. An appropriate response from you to what I said and meant might have been: "I think it *is* true ..." OR "It *is* true ..." OR "Isn't it true ..." "...for the periond prior to CNAA coming into force."
Sorry if I sounded antagonistic. That was *certainly* not the intention.
Absolutely wrong. The British Crime Survey does NOT and has NEVER relied upon reported crime statistics. It includes crimes that would not be reported to the police.
Christian.
Do *not* put the word *only* in front of the letters "HND". It is out of place. ;-)
In the two schools I have experience of recently, there is a strong contingent of parents and teaching support staff that ensure that the children get frequent 1 to 1 reading attention. This leaves the teacher to continue to teach, or deal with more difficult cases.
Christian.
The BCS - Britsh Crime Survey - is a _survey_ the surveyors don't interview people who have experienced a crime. They survey a sample of people 'over 50, 000 surveys of people aged 16 yrs and over'
A claim is made that from the information given by the people surveyed a quesstimate can be derived of 'crimes' and 'non-reported crimes' .
It's somewhat like asking people how much money they've got available to spend in their bank accounts. The answers derived from such a survey might not track with the current balances in their accounts.
Crimes reported to the police -and mostly unsolved- is a factual number that can't be hidden from public scrutiny, the BCS can be manipulated to produce any set of statistics that the purse-holders desire.
It is by far the best, most accurate and bias free statistic available. And it clearly shows that crime is going down.
Absolute bollocks. I've only once reported a crime to the police, but over the years have been victim to many. On top of this, the rules as to which crimes to record and in which category are in constant flux, making year to year comparisons meaningless. To suggest that reported crime figures are better than BCS statistics is ridiculous.
Christian.
OK ! Your _once_ 'reported to the Police ' is a recorded crime. But, you've been the victim of 'many' .... why didn't you report these to the police? Now, when were you contacted by the BCS and what did you report to them? Do _your_ crimes (the crimes of which your were a victim) feature in the BCS. Or were _you_ not one of the surveyed.
{I understand that the Met Office now forecasts 'a dry day with isolated showers' when most people report 'I got soaked coming into work today!' ]
Either:
I was not one of those surveyed. However, had I been, I would have recorded all the crimes that I had been victim to for the period requested, as they guarantee anonymity and you would not feel that you were wasted their time with triviality.
I also don't believe that a survey has to get 100% coverage of the population to be meaningful, so it is no surprise that I haven't been surveyed. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that surveys of really quite low numbers give exactly the same results as far more comprehensive ones. That is why polling organisations (who compete on cost) rarely waste money interviewing more than 1000 people for a survey, as their studies show that the same result will be obtained. The BCS, on the other hand, interviews
50,000 people, making it one of the most comprehensive surveys of any type regularly carried out in the UK.Obviously, for very low frequency crime, where the police recording rate is very high, such as murder, the reported crime statistics may be more accurate than a survey based methodology. However, for the majority of low level or medium frequency crime, the BCS will be head and shoulders above.
Christian.
All this apart, just go by observation. Has "crime" gone up or down?
Off to u.l.m....
Except for the fact that 99% of the population avoid canvassers like the plague, the other 1% only talk to them because they have nothing better to do (maybe they have no usenet access.)
Also standing with a clipboard outside M&S on a Monday morning, or cold calling on a 90 year old too terrified to answer the door, or a working mum in the middle of preparing dinner will sway the results too far to be of any significance.
The *only* accurate statistic is that there are too many statisticians, by precisely what percentage you can just make up on the spot.
As you wish. However, such factors remaining constant, how do you explain the almost halving of crime that is reported to the survey?
The fact is that crime has gone down very significantly. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.
Christian.
Easily - it's bollocks.
Take, for instance, the rate for murder - quite a hard thing to hide, if someone's been done in, so not often unreported, and, AFAIK, a constant definition. 300 murders per year, from 1898 'till the mid-
1960s. Peak of 1,043 in 2002/2003.
There is no doubt that the murder rate has massively increased since the war. However, this is largely drugs turf war related.
Attempted murder is easily affected by reporting changes, where, perhaps, such an event might recorded as assault or GBH previously. Murder is less affected, as the event is there for all to see and is easily and consistently defined over time and has an exceptionally high reporting rate.
Otherwise, you'd be suggesting that murders have gone up 3 fold, whilst attempted murders have gone up 120 fold, which would suggest a gross reduction in the would-be murderer's competence!
I'm still waiting for ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that crime in general hasn't reduced in the last 10 years. Your Aunt Maude doesn't count, unless she has been compiling evidence about this field.
Christian.
The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the normal meaning of the words in question. To me your explanation sounds like the application of logic. I used to have a flatmate who habitually answered any either/or question with yes. Drove me mad.
Thanks. I think I better apologise in turn. I tend to be very prickly on some subjects.
OK, so the murder rate has massively increased - you say that it is "drugs turf war related". It's still crime - and, drug crime has gone up massively, too!
She probably has more grasp of reality, as well as statistics. If you lump in total motoring offences, for instance, with total crimes of violence, a small percentage reduction in the former will skew the result considerably.
Time to go to uk.l.m. Probably no more for me to say here.
The 99% avoiding canvassers was quite probably 85% 10 years ago (or was it 25% or 45% or 75%?)
There is no credible evidence for anything associated with the subject matter.
Oh and can you get your newsreader sorted as your original poster attributions are missing.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.