Printable View
How much of that real terms gap is the most recent year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I left the sector in 2013, but I recall the employers pension contributions went up since then. There also used to be an auto-increment each year, up to a certain point.
Difficult to see where it will end. It could be a case of staff shooting themselves in the foot.
The 15% figure is to August 2022 I think. They gave us 3% last year, and 2022 inflation was 10% in August (when the raises come into effect). This year inflation is projected to be ~7% in August and they're offering 2% I think, so the real terms gap would be around 20% if that goes through.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
You get an auto-increment up the pay spine each year, up to a certain point. But that happens in every job, doesn't it? I mean, you're supposed to earn more with five years of experience than you are with none. But after 6 years or so, you hit the top of the pay spine, and if you haven't been promoted there's no spinal increment.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
You also get an "inflation raise." I assume that's what the 15% is based on.
I'm actually pleasantly suprised the union is doing something that has some impact. Usually they go on strike a day here, a day there, a few lectures don't get taught, exams and assignments are changed to accommodate that, and no-one really cares. But, the students will definitely care if their degrees aren't worth anything. I think a few unis getting sued for failing to deliver the degrees they promised might shake their resolve to be greedy cunts.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
The uni sector as a whole was £3bn richer in 2021 than in 2020, for example, and they've been making good profits every year now since tuition went up to £9k for UK students.
Goddamn Australibtards, with their mockery of our trade deal. Lucky for them there isn't an Asian Union, or we'd leave it. That'd show 'em!
I heard somewhere that Bodger was so desperate to get a post-Brexit deal that he offered Australia a big sweetener on how they calculated the beef imports. Something to do with counting the weight of the whole cow instead of just the meat. The Aussie minister didn't ask for it, but he was offered it directly by Bodger so said 'thanks, dumbass, we'll take it' (or words to that effect). Apparently, the Brains Truss was furious, as even she could see it was a retarded thing to do - and that's saying something.
#MEGA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkXSR3_Ixwc
Whoever makes these is a genius.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTyPJz7DwxI
There's a big difference between profit and surplus. Universities make the latter and surplus is almost always reinvested in the estate. There's no shareholders receiving a dividend.
God, I hate this kind of flawed analysis when it's coupled with inflammatory language:
https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/12941...e-to-negotiate
Apparently 6% surplus (which all gets reinvested) is mega profit. It's not. Any private business with less than 10% and with capped pricing would be seriously worried. 5% would be a good offer and it's what most private businesses are doing.
If the union want a 10% pay rise, just recognise that 5% of staff will probably be made redundant or not replaced when leaving. Then universities will cut down on the routine maintenance, replacement and investment programme. No new labs, library budget cuts, run down sports facilities and less high quality students applying. At best, you'll be grinding out 10% larger class sizes, handling more admin tasks and be under more pressure to bring in grant and consultancy funding and get published.
Isn't it a bit fuckey to just take for granted that the discrepancy in pay from the top to the bottom of the pay scales in the university is untouchable as a means of conveying fair wages to the workers?
Those union employees asking for a 10% raise... putting them still earning a fraction of what the top admins are making. That's where the money for those raises needs to come from. Assuming that it's moral for some members of a company to be earning 100x more money than other members of the same company seems to be the problem, to me.
IDK what the proper ratio is, but what we take for granted is insane.
The vast majority of UK unis are charities, which means they're non-profit and are funded by tuition fees and national council funding. The tuition fees have been capped for several years now, meaning unis are increasingly relying on foreign students to make up £££, and accepting higher numbers of lower-quality UK students. Also worth noting the vice-chancellors and principals makes hundreds of thousands per year. That's a hell of a lot to pay someone for charity work. Their salaries go up well-beyond inflation while they expect the rest of us to suck it up.
You're right there's a difference between a surplus and a profit, but that doesn't change the fact that £3bn in surplus is a lot - a 10% pay rise for lecturers would only take up about 1/3 of that. You also sound like if they don't reinvest that they won't be able to have a library and the gym weight room will have no equipment in it. That's not where the vast majority of new investment goes - it goes into expansion - more buildings to take on more low-quality students to make more money.
The department I'm in has expanded from about 100 students to 270 in the last twelve years, so I know all about grinding out larger class sizes already. The numbers get higher every year and the quality of the students goes down. We're teaching more dumb kids now than ever. I'm not saying that to degrade them, but it's just a fact that a lot of them don't really belong in uni. But if they've got £9k then the uni wants them almost no matter how bad they are and if they're a foreign student with £30k they can get in while barely speaking English, and certainly not being able to write it.
The system is broken because of low investment by the gov't since 2010 (shocking from the Tories, I know), and in a way it's not the unis' fault. However, they want to cut corners on staff costs to stay competitive with each other, not so they can make the students' lives better, whereas if the raises go in across the country, there'd be no change to how competitive they are with each other.
The change in UK uni model from central to tuition-based funding means the students are increasingly treated as customers who need to be pleased at every turn. That often means adopting policies that aren't in the students' best interests, but makes them happier "customers," like fewer and easier assessments and lower entry standards (as mentioned) and lower academic quality standards leading to grade inflation. A lot of students might feel happy they can graduate with a 2:1 instead of the 2:2 they would have received ten years ago, but it's hard to argue that's in their best interests, never mind the best interests of the company that ends up hiring them.
The unis' reaction to the strike also reveals their lack of interest in students, other than as a commodity. The attempt to bypass the marking and assessment boycott and to graduate students without marks is comical, unless you're a student whose degree won't be recognized by anyone if you want to go on to postgrad education.
Whether the union expects 10% and nothing less, or would settle for a smaller number like 5% (which seems more likely since demands are almost always above expectations in these disputes), the fact is that the unis are sticking to their 2% offer and refusing to even negotiate. So yeah, they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned, and most of my colleagues feel the same way.
Or more precisely, the gov't who is underfunding them. I get that times are tough, but they are happy to give money to their rich mates, but not to doctors, nurses, teachers, lecturers, ambulance drivers, etc.. The sooner they're out on their ass the sooner the country can start to recover from their reign of shit.
That's a good point which I alluded to in my previous post. The executive branches at unis aren't taking their share of the hurt; on the contrary, they're doing better than ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You definitely need to ignore the £2bn part (which pays for new and replacment research facilities and other investments). 6% surplus is what matters.
Let's say we are the average institute. Income =100. Costs = 94. Surplus = 6.
Income opportunities are limited. Domestic fees are capped and research income fluctuates with grants. Income of 103 is realistic.
Staff costs are 47. 10% pay rise = 51.7.
Non-staff costs are 47. 10% inflation = 51.7.
Now we have a deficit of 0.4. So no investments are possible and debt is required, which is difficult to acquire if you expect to run at a deficit. Job losses are inevitable.
This is also the average institute. Many already run a deficit and have high levels of debt. Those institutes are going to have a big problem. It will be painful for the staff that work there.
The VC at my old employer earns £380k. If he worked for free, the 8,000 staff would get a £4 per month pay rise.
£380k is really low for an organisation of that size, with that income, number of staff and public responsibility and interest. £380k is about the going rate for a £20m-£40m turnover business in the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
I mean, I can make up some numbers that support my argument too. But if we go with the numbers from this:
https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/12941...e-to-negotiate
then sector income went from £44.1bn to £44.6bn last year, an increase of ~8%.
surplus was £2.6bn, highest in four years according to UCU. That's a 5.8% surplus
staff expenditures are 51% of income, a record low
increasing SE by 5% (which I assume both of us are ok with) would cost 1.14bn
Again, I'm not blaming the unis for the gov't not providing enough money. But they need to get after the gov't for more money rather than just pretend the staff can live on less year after year, to the point of falling 25% behind inflation over 14 years. And if the buildings get more run down and the gym room has to settle for a rusty bench press machine until that happens, so be it.Quote:
The financial data covers the 2021/22 financial year, when RPI reached 12.3% and UCEA imposed a pay award of only 1.5%. Since 2009, a series of low pay awards have seen staff wages fall 25% behind inflation and UCEA has now also begun imposing a sub-inflation award worth just 5% for 2022/23. UCU is demanding a better pay offer that helps its members meet the cost-of-living crisis.
UCEA wrote to UCU last week to say it will not negotiate unless UCU calls off a marking and assessment boycott at 145 universities in the ongoing pay and conditions dispute. UCEA's failure to negotiate threatens to disrupt millions of exam results as well as the graduations of well over half a million students. Rather than use their wealth to pay staff fairly and settle the dispute, universities are threatening punitive pay deductions of up to 100% and trying to circumvent academic processes designed to uphold degree standards. Hundreds of academics have responded by raising concerns that degrees risk being devalued.
MPs and Lords from across the political spectrum have written to UCEA and signed a Westminster parliamentary motion to tell the employer body to withdraw the pay deductions and settle the dispute.
The issue with the executive is not their gross pay, it's the idea that they're worth an above-inflation pay raise year after year but the rest of the staff isn't. Surely you can see why that rankles...
On a lighter note, Boris' hairdresser got awarded an Order of the British Empire. lol.
Analysts typically use the pre- and post-COVID years to analyse the compound growth rate. That works out at 3.8% for sector income for 19/20 through 21/22. That's terrible considering the amount of investing going on in student accommodation. The compound annual growth rate of income is 4.9% if you go back seven years in the data. All of this is assuming the 21 institutions that didn't file their HESA return yet aren't skewing the numbers (they probably are - and not in a good way).
For sure a 5% pay increase this year is reasonable and where you'll probably land. That might be 4% plus a £500 one-off payment or some other arrangement e.g. one extra day off. I was just pointing out the stupidity of the unions asking for 10%. Clearly it's bad form for a VC to take a pay increase above their staff - you are unusual in making that point, rather than complaining about their salary to begin with.
Anyway, let's rework the numbers. Today we have surplus of 5.8 for reinvesting. Next year:
Income = 103.80
Staff costs of 47.1 with 5% increase = 49.45
Non-staff costs of 47.1 with 10% inflation = 51.81
Given income growth looks to be coming from students (under a fixed domestic student fee) and "Other" (accommodation), then you could assume some extra recurrent cost to deliver the income growth. Let's assume 1.24.
Surplus is now 1.3%. That's already giving you problems. You can go 1-2 years without a replacement program of investment but there's not much further you can go with income growth rate now if staff are already fully loaded and all the halls are built. Another year of high inflation and capped prices and you really start to have a problem. That's before we think of all those institutes that are already making a deficit.
I was really angry when the fee change came in. It's also incredibly stupid and just deferring a problem when many student loans will never be repaid. The government needs to view a good university education as an investment. I'd like to see more affordability checks built in if we need some student funding e.g. if somebody has paid £20k per year for their child to go to private school, they can afford £10k for uni.
You know you're jaded with Boris and the scandals when you just shrug your shoulders at the honours list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Re: unis - from the link i posted earlier
Does this not mean they have £19.6bn stashed away in investments and cash? Or am I missing something?Quote:
cash and current investment holdings have reached £19.6bn, £1.3bn more than last year
As for unions asking for 10%, well, unions always ask for more than the members are willing to accept. Didn't the jr. doctors ask for 35%?
Doctors and nurses who reportedly saved his life when he had covid - nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
Lady who runs a balloon over his head before a press conference - OBE.
Sounds like Boris alright, lol.
This latest kerfuffle he's having with Sunak over the honours list is just another reason the spoiled little brat shouldn't be allowed anywhere near power. God he's a joke.
Sounds like every PM ever. The honours list is always people like this. Well, maybe not hairdressers, but if he's going to take the piss, that's a good one to put in there.
Don't forget the lady who walks his dog. She got one too.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I mean, if he had some reason to think he'd been wronged, taking the piss might make sense in a childish kind of way. The fact that he's the cause of his own demise still hasn't entered his head, and if the past is anything to go by, it never will. I don't throw this word around lightly, but he really is a fucking sociopath.
Did you read his resignation letter? Here, I'll sum it up for you.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-p...-740678884.jpg
Context is key here. The use of "current investments" means endowments aren't included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Otherwise, a regular business would want cash at hand of 3-6 months expenses. That's £10bn-£21bn. They will be earning up to £1bn interest on that at the moment.
Timing is also key. The cash balance is at 31st July. Most institutions then have 1-2 months of expenses before student fees start flowing in (I'm assuming they still come in around Sept/Oct time).
Then you need to factor in where the cash has come from. With ongoing building work, a chunk of that cash will be loans that must be used for capital expenditure per the terms of the loan. A lot of that capex will be happening in the summer, hence the cash balance at 31st July in the financial statements.
In other honours news, Boris tried to nominate his father (apparently for excellence in being Daddy?).
Also, the Brains Truss is hoping to nominate the head of the economic "think tank," whose advice led her to crash the economy.
Now THAT'S a piss-take.
To go off on a tangent, this word gets used like it's an insult. It's not an insult. Sociopathy is a personality disorder, not a lifestyle choice. The difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is that while a sociopath might not give a fuck about your feelings, he still does have some sense of functioning morality and understand actions have consequences, unlike a psycho, who has no moral boundaries and often no fear or even concept of consequence.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
I have some degree of respect for sociopaths, because they still function somewhat adequately in society, often very successfully. It's ok to be an arsehole if you're not breaking the law. The line between sociopath and psychopath isn't very clear so those who remain firmly on the right side of that line while battling with what is ultimately a mental illness deserve a bit more credit than to have their condition thrown around like it's an insult.
Not that I'm defending Boris here. idk if he's a psycho or not. It wouldn't surprise me. People in positions of such power often already have a warped sense of morality due to their sense of self importance. He's certainly an egomaniac, which isn't necessarily a personality disorder and is rather just being fucking smug about being a big shot. I won't defend that aspect of his personality.
I mean I use the word psycho in the same context, like it's an insult, but that's because regular sociopaths, and there are tons of them in society, are living proof that you can be a sociopathic arsehole without wronging anyone else. Being generally reclusive and unfriendly, resentful of spending time socialising with others, I know a lot of people like this, but most of them fight through it and pretend they like socialising because they are battling with a personality disorder., they are trying to choose to not be a sociopath like it's a choice. This is the source of a lot of peoples' anxiety.
Psychos don't deserve respect because they hurt other people, their condition defines not just their personality but their behaviour too. They don't have any mental control. They are mentally weak, unlike sociopaths.
Seems the Parliamentary Standards Committee aren't seeing the upside of sociopaths, at least not when they're also the PM.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FypjgaUW...jpg&name=small
That said, exploding him seems a bit harsh.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyppZsnX...jpg&name=small
idk what this has to do with sociopathy. These might or might not be the actions of a sociopath. What we can both certainly agree on is that they are not the actions of someone fit for public office. (c) seems subjective and alone wouldn't be grounds for a suspension, but the others, assuming the Committee has the same standards of proof as a court, most certainly are. 90 days seems like a ridiculously lenient punishment. That's a nice long holiday, it's pretty much a reward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The committee gave him a preview of the report with the specific instruction that it had to be kept confidential until the report was made public. Right away, he went public with its content.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The irony is he was originally only up on the contempt of parliament charge (a). He then added four more to his rap sheet by his actions towards the committee (b,c,d,e). It's kinda hilarious he's that shameless.
He's been on holiday since he left the PM job anyways. Now at least he won't be getting paid for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well "specific instruction" is possibly a grey area. I mean, is he bound by law, or a court order, or specific rules that he is obliged to follow? I really don't know, but if he's not under any kind of legal obligation, then it's a matter of opinion whether leaking such info amounts to a "breach of confidence" in any meaningful sense. Just because they told him not to, doesn't mean shit. What would be a breach of confidence is if they have the authority to demand he doesn't go public. They probably do have that authority in the same way an inquest does, in which case ok it's not subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
I mean, I'm contractually obliged to not disclose confidential information about my employer. If I do, that's a breach of confidence for sure and I lose my job. But if I leave, I'm no longer under such an obligation. So they can ask me not to disclose info, but if I do, calling it a "breach of confidence" would be quite a stretch. They have no reason to expect my confidence. So that's why it's possibly subjective. It really does depend on the authority of the body and any contracts Boris is bound to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be. It's a parliamentary committee, set up by parliament to have authority over MPs by law. It can tell him, or any MP, 'we're going to share this information with you on the understanding that it be kept confidential,' and if you then go blabbing, it's a breach of confidence and, as such, you're showing 'contempt' for parliament.
He only had to keep his gob shut for a few days and he couldn't even manage that. lol, what a muppet.
Basically, the committee has the same powers as a court of law. If it tells you to sit down and shut up, you either sit down and shut up or you're in contempt (it's called contempt of parliament because the committee represents parliament, ldo). Ergo, charge c).
In the same way, if you lie in court, you're in contempt. And if you lie to the committee, same thing (b).
If a court found you guilty and you then referred to it as a kangaroo court, you'd be in contempt of court (not to mention a whacko, assuming this is the UK we're talking about). That's d).
I'm not sure what e) is about exactly, but a lot of Boris' mates have been shit-talking the committee and he hasn't condemned that behaviour, so I'm guessing it's something to do with that.
Also, a slight correction to the previous post: The committee has authority over everyone, not just MPs. It can (and did) require people to testify under oath, meaning if they lied they could be brought up on charges.
So yeah, it is essentially a court of law under a different name.
In related news, my understanding is that people like Mogg and Dorries, who've also referred to the committee as a kangaroo court, could also be found in contempt of parliament and face sanctions. You can't just shit-talk a parliamentary committee because you don't like it's findings.
Well if he's under oath it's a a very different picture. You're not in contempt if you lie under oath, that's perjury and is much more serious than contempt. I don't think Boris is that stupid that he'd take the oath and then blatantly mislead them. He appears to be acting with a sense of impunity, that the only consequences are a holiday sorry suspension, and that people will think he's an arsehole, which he doesn't give a fuck about.
I can't imagine that failure to condemn other peoples' actions amounts to any kind of offence whatsoever. That seems ridiculous. If they're arguing that he's encouraging them that's different, that makes him complicit. But silence alone doesn't make him complicit.Quote:
I'm not sure what e) is about exactly, but a lot of Boris' mates have been shit-talking the committee and he hasn't condemned that behaviour, so I'm guessing it's something to do with that.
Using the term "kangaroo court" is also highly unlikely to be a punishable offence. It's a highly subjective term with no legal definition, and could be used to describe a court that has no power or authority to enforce meaningful punishment. If we're assuming that nobody can go to jail for lying to or deliberately misleading a Parliamentary committee, and I highly doubt anyone could do, then it can be argued that it's a reasonable term to use.
Of course we all know why they use such language. It's intended to bring into public question the authority of the committee, to make people think it has no real power. Maybe that's true, in which case it is a kangaroo court by some definitions.
They use the word 'misleading,' which is short of lying/perjury.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The problem with 'lying' is it requires a factual counter. Like if I say it's Tuesday and you can prove it's Wednesday, then I'm caught dead to rights.
Johnson's defense, as you'll recall, was that he was too stupid to understand the rules. And without doing a mind-meld you can't prove he was lying - maybe he really is that thick.
They did, however, argue that his defense was "disingenuous," iow they called bullshit on it. They pointed out that anyone should have known that the rules were being broken, repeatedly. But they can't prove he was lying in the legal sense of haivng a factual counter because they can't read his mind.
Not sure about that one , like I said. But I do remember them asking him at the hearing if he approved or disapproved of their words, and I think he just waffled on about something else without answering the question. They asked him again and he didn't answer again, so they said 'fine, ok' and moved on.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So he had the chance to say it was wrong of them and he didn't. That's not as bad as outright encouraging them, but it is arguably correct to use the word 'complicit' to describe it.
No, it has a very clear meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ngaroo%20court
In the context of Johnson and his allies' use of the term, they argued that his guilt was pre-ordained and the committee itself was a sham.
I'm not an expert on parliamentary committees, but I do remember the word 'perjury' being raised by commentators as a consequence of being caught lying to them. They also did make people swear on the bible before testifying (there was a meme of the bible catching fire while Johnson was swearing on it) And it's enforceable so yeah you could in principle go to jail for that. It seems unlikely they would do that to a former PM, but some minion of his who worked in no. 10 had no such status. And at least one of these minions was quoted by the c'ttee as saying that the rules weren't being enforced in no. 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're making up your own definition of KC, so yeah I can see why in your world this makes sense. But the reason they're doing it is to bring into public the idea that it's a stitch-up/frame-job/he was railroaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I mean it would be odd to say the committee had no power after they just ended his political career in one stroke. He's not coming back from this.
I mean citing a Miriam Webster dictionary as a source of legal terms is beyond questionable, Poopy.
Is this an attempt at humor?
You understand a word's meaning is that intended by its speaker, requiring cooperation of both the speaker and listener to allow communication.
You understand a dictionary is a collection of how words have been used in the past, and not a prescriptive text about what words mean in the present or future.
You probably also understand legal definitions are not often the same as colloquial definitions.
For an otherwise cogent argument, this dilutes your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
There's no ambiguity about what the term "kangaroo court" means, except in Ong's head.
If I have to explain what every word means to him when I speak it, we're going to be here forever.
Communication assumes the other person has a grasp of the vocabulary, not that he hasn't made up his own meanings for words that don't even make sense.
It's also not a legal term just because it has the word court in it. It's a phrase that's been around a long time. If you or anyone else doesn't understand it, and I point it out to you, with the help of a dictionary, what the fuck do you want me to do? Say, 'oh i'm sorry, you've made up a different meaning for that phrase than what it means. I should just accept your meaning then?' FML.
Yeah legal definitions and online dictionary definitions are not the same thing. I'm not quite as relaxed as mojo when it comes to language, words don't mean literally what you want them to mean otherwise this sentence will stop making sense around elephant helicopter. Words and phrases have meaning and they should be used in the right context, that's the entire point of language, the ability to communicate effectively using sounds we both recognise as having specific meaning.
I'm not making up my own definition of kangaroo court, rather I'm accepting that it can mean slightly different things depending on the use and context.
An example is the war crimes tribunal. I don't for one minute believe these courts apply the same standard of proof as regular courts. There is a lot more focus on the position of power someone is in, and a lot more credit given to third party accounts. Like in the case of Solobodon Milosovic, who was clearly guilty of war crimes but seemed to be convicted based on the assumption that only he had the authority to carry out a genocide. That's not proven guilt, it's assumed guilt. So arguably the war crimes court is a kangaroo court because it's easier to get a conviction and it's questionable whether it has true global jurisdiction. It certainly seemed like his guilt was pre determined by the court, which I think we can both agree would qualify it as a kangaroo court. But it's also extremely difficult to find any legal sympathy for Milosovic because he was clearly a genocidal maniac.
There certainly is ambiguity relating to what kangaroo court means. It basically means "a court which I don't recognise as legitimate", which is an extremely subjective definition because it's the viewpoint of the person using the term. It can't have an agreed meaning because we can't all agree on the legitimacy of a court.
There may be confusion caused by people not understanding what a word means and using it incorrectly. That doesn't mean the word itself is ambiguous.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's the first definition given by MW.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But, you made up your own definition before by saying it's a court with no power. Even that made no sense, as the PC definitely had the power to ban Johnson from parliament and effectively end his career.
It's the pronoun "I" there that you're using to give it subjectivity. A court can objectively, unarguably be set up to be illegitimate, to have a pre-ordained outcome and to not follow normal legal procedures of burden of proof. That was the argument Johnson and his allies were making, that the PC was biased and had already decided he was guilty before it started. None of them said anything about it lacking power to enforce an outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Someone can call something a kangaroo court when it isn't. That's them being wrong, not the term being subjective.
You can make all the arguments you want, but you're not going to convince me kangaroo court means anything other than what me and the dictionary say it means.
My point is that communication requires cooperation between all parties.
If I start using a word in a context that doesn't make sense to you, then one of us needs to bend a bit to keep the exchange of ideas flowing. It doesn't matter which. We just need to cooperate to try to understand what each other intend to mean.
Breaking a flow of conversation to hash out what someone intended with a word happens from time to time. That's fine.
What irks me is when one person, instead of cooperating, makes an appeal to authority to bully the other into using words in their way.
It's certainly *a* solution, but not a very cooperative one.
It requires that people use words properly. If I'm using a word improperly and you point that out to me, I'd be grateful. I don't want to go around using words in a way no-one else understands.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Again, there's no ambiguity about what kangaroo court means, there was just confusion in Ong's head. I figured out what he meant by it, I pointed out it was wrong and what it really means, and I also pointed out that his alternative meaning made no sense either.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So is telling them when they're using a word incorrectly, and what the word actually means.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So if a person comes to you and says force equals mass times gravity you aren't allowed to hand them a physics textbook and point out their mistake? That's being uncooperative? That's making an appeal to authority to bully them? FML.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I mean fine, I could have been a bit more polite about it than I was. I'm sorry for that, ok? From now on when someone uses a word incorrectly I'll try to be more forgiving.
It requires that people use words properly. If I'm using a word improperly and you point that out to me, I'd be grateful. I don't want to go around using words in a way no-one else understands.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Again, there's no ambiguity about what kangaroo court means, there was just confusion in Ong's head. I figured out what he meant by it, I pointed out it was wrong and what it really means, and I also pointed out that his alternative meaning made no sense either.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So is telling them when they're using a word incorrectly, and what the word actually means.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So if a person comes to you and says force equals mass times gravity you aren't allowed to hand them a physics textbook and point out their mistake? That's being uncooperative? That's making an appeal to authority to bully them? FML.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I mean fine, I could have been a bit more polite about it than I was. I'm sorry for that, ok? From now on when someone uses a word incorrectly I'll try to be more forgiving.
There's no "proper" way to use words, though. There's only the way they've been used before and how they're used now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There's the "expected" use vs. the "actual" use. Asserting the new use is wrong 'cause the old use exists doesn't allow for how languages evolve.
I'm just saying the invocation of a dictionary was a slight on your otherwise cogent argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There's no "correct" way to use words. Words are made up. Grammar is made up. It's all a game with dynamic rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You mean like when physicists talk about electron spin, while also saying they're point particles which are one and the same as a wave function..? Despite that none of that makes sense using common definitions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Or like when physicists talk about the color of quarks, despite the fact that assigning a property like color to a particle is pure nonsense?
But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't hand them a textbook or make any other appeal to authority. I would explain what I understand and can demonstrate to them, and if possible and necessary, I'd demonstrate what I can so that we can both share a common observation and struggle for a consistent explanation of that observation.
Also, you may underestimate the amount of tomfoolery and silliness that we get up to in physics conversations.
BTW, Force does equal mass times gravity in projectile motion, which is one of the first topics covered in intro phys, where we ignore air resistance. The misunderstanding that there are other forces, and other accelerations isn't all together uncommon for a 2nd week physics student.
Careful... That sounds like personal growth or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
:o
You're not going to win this argument either. Words have agreed-on meanings. That's why dictionaries exist in the first place. People don't get to make up their own definitions for words at their whim.
I'm not really arguing and I'm not interested in winning.
Languages are living, evolving things. Words' meanings change over time.
You can not like that the word "literally" means the opposite of what it did 30 years ago, but it doesn't change the fact that people just started using it differently, and that's the definition, now.
You kinda made my point. Words have agreed-upon meanings. That's a cooperative event, agreeing. You simply have to cooperate to communicate. If the person you're talking to isn't cooperating, then that's not on you. If they're actually trying to tell you something, though, and you simply refuse to listen because you're hung up on a book that isn't relevant to the conversation, then the lack of cooperation falls on you.
Dictionaries exist to tell us how words have been used in the past, nothing more. That is why they exist. People do get to make up words on a whim. Shakespeare did it often, and many of those words remain in the lexicon of our language. The word cyborg didn't exist in my dad's old dictionary. Now it does in most dictionaries.
Your position, here, is truly baffling.
Did anyone read Bodger's Daily Mail column on how he can't lose weight? Me neither.
I do think it's funny though that he's already been fired from two journo gigs for lying, got kicked out of parliament for lying, and now the DM is paying him six figures to write a column for them. That's a classy paper for sure.
I'm not making anything up. You're pulling internet definitions up like they're definitive when we're talking about a concept that is highly subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Rather than a concise sentence which attempts to describe something in as few words as possible, try reading an article about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court
Let's analyse this. The first sentence says "is". That is an attempt at a factual claim. Of course it's Wikipedia so anyone could have written that but let's go with it because it does get better.Quote:
A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc.[2] A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations (compare show trial).[3]
"carries little or no"... there's subjectivity right there. How much is a little?
"is typically"... this is not objective language.
"may ignore"... but might not, eh?
"may also apply"
That word "may" again.
We agree on what "may" means, right? It means "might or might not".
So basically there's no actual consensus on what a kangaroo court is. Such a court doesn't actually exist. It's a made up term used to refer to courts that would certainly not call themselves kangaroo courts.
It's as subjective a term because it's is not clearly defined.
A side note... there is something that calls itself a kangaroo court in baseball, teams use it for internal discipline. So if we're going to have to agree on what a kangaroo court is, then that's what it is, because that's the only court I can find that is actually called such.
I mean poop's claim "words have definitive meaning" is clearly nonsense. We're talking about a court here. What type of court? A court isn't just a place where justice happens. It's also a place where people play tennis. Court can also mean to romance, as a verb.
But poop probably should just pick one definition and stop using the word for other uses. Because words have meaning.
Basically, kangaroo court is a term somebody used once to describe what he felt was a sham of justice and and it caught on. It's used today by people who don't wish to recognise the authority of a court. That could be for many reasons, subjective reasons, where one person might say "yes I agree that's a sham of justice" and another might say "I think it's perfectly just" and we have a fucking debate about whether a court is a kangaroo court and it's a debate nobody wins because there's actually no such thing as a kangaroo court other than in baseball.
lol, you picked up the Wiki definition like that couldn't have been written by anybody, then tried to pick it apart and/or "debunk" it (at least I presume that's what you were doing, I didn't actually bother to read your ramblings). You might as well what quote your neighbor the cat lady says a kangaroo court is.
The amount of energy you two are expending on doubling down and all this stuff about words being ambiguous, when you were clearly using it wrongly in the first place is hilarious. And not only were you using the term incorrectly, but the way you were using it made no sense either. Even if we accept you, Ong, alone in the world, believed and meant that they were calling it a kangaroo court because they thought it was toothless, it obviously wasn't toothless because it kicked him out of parliament.
Bodger Johnson and his mates: This is a kangaroo court! Pwaaah!
Ong translation: They're saying the parliamentary committee has no power.
Me: No, that's not what they're saying. They're saying his guilt was pre-determined and the PC was a sham.
Ong: No, they're saying it has no power. I do what I want with words.
Me: Here, look at a dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
The PC: Bodger, you're hereby suspended from parliament for 90 days. Also hand in your pass, you lying fuck, your career is over.
Proving the PC does, in fact, have power. Which everyone who knows anything about PCs already knew and so no-one, certainly not someone who'd spent time in parliament, would try to claim it doesn't by calling it a "kangaroo court."
Ong: I'm doubling down, words are subjective blah blah blah. I can make a word mean anything I want.
Me: No, actually you can't. Words mean what they mean. You may have thought it meant something other than it does, but the word itself still means what it means.
Mojo: Words can change and mean different things. Stop being mean to Ong by correcting his made-up vocabulary.
Me: He was using it incorrectly, I just pointed it out to him.
Mojo: But you're still a big meany to my friend.
Me: Fine, I'm sorry for being a big meany. But I'm still right.
Ong: Blah blah blah three posts about a wiki citation - look, I analysed each individual word, ergo I have a point.
Me: Whatever...
Ong, all you have to do to win this argument is show me a legitimate source that defines a kangaroo court as one with no power. I'll give you the rest of the weekend to find one.
Not once did I say anything about being mean. I don't need to waste any thought or energy protecting ong from people being mean to him. He's perfectly capable of handling himself in that regard.
My criticism was to the strength it added to your otherwise cogent argument. You could have had the same discussion w/o invoking a dictionary. It was intellectually inferior to your other arguments.
Now I can lay the same criticism on ong for pulling out wikipedia. Just another appeal to authority, and one which both of you immediately criticized as lacking authority. lol.
The discussion proceeds with more intellectual honesty if you discuss what each of you understands, rather than trying to make some claims to Truth. We're all just sharing what we understand and the false crutch of "being right" only makes it more difficult to learn from each other.
I pulled up Wiki to basically play Poop's game while using a less concise definition. Just like online dictionaries, Wikipedia is an excellent resource. Of course, I know it can't be relied on to be factual, just like I know a brief description of a phrase isn't going to define it efficiently.
It took me literally one google search, and I didn't even have to click a link, it was the definition google offered.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Quote:
kangaroo court
noun
A mock court, especially one hastily improvised or irregularly conducted.
A court characterized by dishonesty or incompetence.
A judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, or a group which conducts such proceedings, which is without proper authority, abusive, or otherwise unjust.
"or otherwise unjust"
Objective as hell, right?
In fairness, if what poop said is true in that this committee that we were initially talking about has the authority to charge people with perjury for lying under oath to them, and this committee is already well established in the justice system, and that guilt is not presumed, it's not what I'd call a kangaroo court.
I said a credible source. Google searches the entire internet, not just the credible sources. It may well be quoting wiki there or some other nonsense website. Nice try though.
In any case, let's consider what is meant by "without proper authority." Thought it may well apply to a kangaroo court, we unfortunately run into another instance of a phrase that doesn't mean what you think it means.
If an ad hoc "court" is set up somewhere, declares someone guilty, sentences them to death, then hangs them on the spot, that court is acting "without proper authority." That's not the same as lacking the power to enforce a decision (which I'll remind you for the umpteenth time is what you claimed the term meant), as the "court" clearly did have the power to enforce it's decision.
You might then try to re-interpret the phrase to mean that an ad hoc "kangaroo" court lacks the power to enforce a legitimate decision, so let's examine that. Such a claim would make even less sense in the context of a parliamentary committee, which is set up by the same parliament where all the laws originate, and thus has an authority as legitimate as any crown court in the land.
The PC both had the power to enforce its decision, and that power was gained through a legitimate process. Surely even Boris Johnson, the man who claimed to be too stupid to know he was breaking his own rules, Jacob Rees Mogg and (possibly) Nadine Dorries are familiar enough with parliamentary procedures to understand those things. Therefore they had no reason to use "kangaroo court" in the non-existent sense that you did of a court with no power.
But is Bojo using the term Kangaroo Court breaking any laws?
Is it contempt of the court? I'm no legal scholar, but I understand that being held in contempt of court for something you've said usually happens when the thing that was said was said under oath in / to the court.
I've heard of other reasons a judge can find someone in contempt, sure.
Is this a thing that I just don't know about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's considered contempt of parliament to shit-talk a PC. And my understanding is it doesn't matter if you do it before, during or after the hearing. Which makes sense, the committee's authority has to extend beyond just the room the hearing is held in.
Jesus wept, you pull up a dirty online dictionary definition then rebuke me for using a google definition, which is literally just pulling up a dirty dictionary definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
I'm not sure how you even type this comment without realising this very obvious flaw in your argument.
I'll just remind you that I haven't claimed the term means anything specific, but rather that it's a subjective term that can mean something different to different people in different contexts.Quote:
(which I'll remind you for the umpteenth time is what you claimed the term meant)
"Lacking proper authority" can most certainly mean lacking the power to enforce their judgements. To remind you, I have acknowledged that if this committee does have that power, that authority (I'm using those words as synonyms), then it's not a kangaroo court in my opinion. But if there's any suggestion that the process is politically motivated or that Boris' guilt was presumed, then maybe it is a kangaroo court. I have no idea if this was a fair process, motivated by unbiased factors. I assume so because I have a reasonable amount of faith in our justice system, but I don't know this, and I don't know why some people are using this term to describe this committee. I assume they just want to publicly bring into question the authority of the court, but maybe there's more to it than that. Who knows?
And if being in contempt of parliament means a slap on the wrist and a 90 day suspension then I have to say this committee is lacking in any proper authority and might actually be a kangaroo court. It basically becomes more of an internal employment disciplinary process than a criminal or civil process.Quote:
It's considered contempt of parliament to shit-talk a PC.
I mean this whole debate about kangaroo courts is pretty stupid really. Who cares?
What's more interesting is the debate about language. Poop claims that "words have definite meaning" and for the most part that's true. But words can also be flexible, as mojo points out people can mean something slightly different depending on their culture, or the context of the discussion. So the proper way to approach the kangaroo court thing is to ask why these people are using this term. What are they saying makes this committee different from a fair court? Because that's really what someone means when they use the term. They mean "less than a proper court", whatever that might mean. The point being, it's highly subjective, and in such cases, rather than telling people they are flat out wrong for using the term, or interpreting the term with ambiguity, it's better to try and understand why the term is being used in the first place and if it's a reasonable use of that term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why does it not surprise me that you don't know the Merriam-Webster is a very well-respected dictionary...
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Here's the first time you used the term KC
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And when I said that no-one uses the term in that sense, ever, and that certainly wasn't how Johnson was using it, and explained what the term actually meant to you, that should have been the end of the argument. But instead, you started rambling about language being subjective.
That's like seeing a cat, calling it a hamster, and when someone says 'no that's a cat', you say 'hamster is a highly subjective term, it could be used to describe a cat.' Well, not if you want to make sense it can't.
Alnd before you rehash your excuse that the same term can have multiple meanings, yes I know that. Every six year old knows that. It doesn't change the fact that your use of kangaroo court was, to put it politely, idiosyncratic.
Ok just so we can be clear, let's call what you're describing an "anteater court," i.e., one with no real teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What exactly would you expect the PC to do to Johnson once it found him guilty of contempt of parliament, send him to the Tower of London for life? Take away his croquet set? It's hardly the crime of the century to be a lying buffoon. Getting kicked out of parliament seems pretty appropriate to me.
And no-one claimed it was equivalent to a court of law. That said, the PC did have the power to make people testify under oath and under threat of perjury, which carries a threat of up to seven years in prison. Whether and how it would actually do that is another question.
In Ong's world, a traffic court has no teeth because it isn't going to make someone face a firing squad for going 3 mph over the speed limit. Fucking powerless kangaroo traffic court.
I'm really not sure how you're getting an argument out of this. This description is perfectly fine. I clearly stated the word "could", which should imply a degree of subjectivity. I'm not making factual claims about what it means. I'm making suggestions as to what it could mean to someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by ong
I mean I don't remember you saying this explicitly and I can't be arsed to check but you're just flat out wrong here.Quote:
And when I said that no-one uses the term in that sense, ever...
The Wikipedia page (sorry) says this...
"carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides"
So... lacking authority.
A court that lacks authority yet attempts to try people can reasonable be called a kangaroo court. I really don't see how you can find an argument against that when we're discussing something that has no legal definition and is widely used as a subjective term with political motivations to describe a court that someone either doesn't want to recognise or has no obligation to recognise.
Correction:Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You explained what the term means to you (Poopy), not what it means to ong or me or anyone else.
You showed that your reason for believing such was a dictionary. Bold.
Then you've basically said that you can read Bojo's mind and know exactly what he meant.
That's not the end of any argument. Lol.
Language is subjective. That is fact. I don't understand how you can even posit otherwise in good faith.
It's not like we're speaking in Middle English, or Old English. Yet it's the same language, just that time has passed and definitions have changed... pronunciations have changed... culture has changed around the language and language changes to adapt to cultural needs.
IDK what you think you're "winning" in this when you simply make up rules which don't exist, refuse to actually try to listen with understanding to the people you speak with.
Let's go out on a limb and say that you're totally correct. You know exactly what Bojo meant when he said the thing.
OK. Then you're doing the shittiest job imaginable of convincing honestly interested but skeptical people of your point.
Skill issue.
Get gud.
No, that's an anteater court. Look, you created a new word there!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Now you're talking about a mock court.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So a mock court is different to a kangaroo court, even though many definitions of kangaroo court literally say "a mock court"?
I have to presume you're just trolling at this point.
yes, how dare I rely on a presitgious dictionary for the definition of a word.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm gonna forgive this because you don't live in the UK and, like Ong, don't pay attention to what's going on here. Here's some quotes from Bojo- you tell me if he means a kangaroo court in which the guilt of the accused has been decided ahead of time without due procedure, or an anteater court that has no power to enforce a punishment. I've put they key words in bold just for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rtygate-report
Quote:
It is now many months since people started to warn me about the intentions of the Privileges Committee. They told me that it was a kangaroo court …
They also warned me that most members had already expressed prejudicial views – especially Harriet Harman [the Chair of the PC] – in a way that would not be tolerated in a normal legal process.
Quote:
I was wrong to believe in the committee or its good faith … This decision means that no MP is free from vendetta, or expulsion on trumped up charges by a tiny minority who want to see him or her gone from the Commons.
And here's an article referring to his mates also calling it a kangaroo court. Read this byline and tell me if they meant anteater court or kangaroo court.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ions-contempt/
Quote:
Boris Johnson allies could face suspension for criticising privileges committee
Sources close to the committee said it was likely to consider whether to sanction MPs who called into question its impartiality
Yes and despite language being subjective and changing over the years, there's still agreed-on meanings and there's still dictionaries. There is still no-one using the word "hamster" to refer to a cat. Just like there is no-one using "kangaroo court" to refer to an anteater court.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
lol, this is about as disingenuous and Bodger saying he didn't know they were parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If you were honestly interested you'd go find out on your own, not taking my word for it. I'm just having fun watching Ong try to argue a case with no merit. You're trying to defend him by attacking me, my communication skills, my being a big meany, etc.., thus engaging in a form of reductio ad Ong. You're both just being silly in different ways.
I've been right this whole time, if you guys are too stubborn to admit it, then that's on you, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Mock court is another subjective term and is very much synonymous with kangaroo court.
Well you wouldn't recognise a kangaroo court as having legitimacy would you? So yes it's also a form of a mock court.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Think Venn diagram - the kangaroo court is a subset of the larger circle of mock courts.
Say a law professor held a mock court in a lecture. There was no point to it other than to teach the students about legal procedures. Would you call that court legitimate? No, of course not. Would you call it a kangaroo court? No, of course not.
But you could call a kangaroo court a mock court, it's just a specific type of mock court where guilt is pre-ordained.
Edit: In fact the prof could hold a mock kangaroo court if s/he wanted to. But he couldn't hold a kangaroo mock court. See the difference?
This is kinda hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
You're actually being snobbish about sources.
Here's the thing... with subjective topics, multiple sources are better than one source. That way you get a better picture of what a word or term can mean in different contexts.
Your prestige dictionary still used a single sentence to define a term. That's very much a flaw that no amount of prestige can fix.
I've debated language with mojo before, words do have meaning and we can't just use whatever word we want to mean whatever we want and pretend this is effective communication. But that doesn't mean all words and terms are rigid in the definition. There is naturally some flexibility in the way words are used, some more than others. When it comes to political terms like kangaroo court, we're entering territory that I can only call highly subjective.