Toby Young appointed university 'tsar'

 

I'm surprised no-one has commented on this :

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/...ce-for-students

 

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics...ds-universities

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/

 

just shows how "populist" this Tory Government is, appointing someone who thinks disabled people shouldnt be in schools, for example.

If the government thought that appointing Toby Young was such a great idea, why did they slip the announcement out at one minute past midnight on New Year's Day?

New Year's Day is usually a slow news day, so if they were trying to bury the story, putting it out on the 1st January, where there is hardly any stories to compete with it, would be a strange day to do it. Better to have waited until something Harry/Meghan related pops up.

New Year's Day headlines are all about fireworks. Newsrooms aren't exactly overflowing with journalists as Big Ben strikes midnight to ring in the new year.

If the government thought that appointing Toby Young was such a great idea, why did they slip the announcement out at one minute past midnight on New Year's Day?

 

I wonder if anyone would really have noticed even if it had been announced in the normal manner?

I wonder if anyone would really have noticed even if it had been announced in the normal manner?

Probably, it's completely scandalous.

Probably, it's completely scandalous.

 

To students maybe, but I doubt its anything others will lose sleep about...

On the subject of students, and the Tories :

 

Theresa May under fire as student visa myth exposed

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/...oreign-students

 

(I realise this article is some months old, but it does seem relevant to this thread)

Edited January 4, 20187 yr by vidcapper

To students maybe, but I doubt its anything others will lose sleep about...

Maybe not, but they certainly should be.

Maybe not, but they certainly should be.

 

You mean if they have children coming up to Uni age? :unsure:

You mean if they have children coming up to Uni age? :unsure:

Some people extend their concern beyond themselves and their immediate family. It's called compassion.

Some people extend their concern beyond themselves and their immediate family. It's called compassion.

 

Bam! Pow! Kerpling!

Some people extend their concern beyond themselves and their immediate family. It's called compassion.

 

True enough, but how many of those will even have heard of Toby Young, let alone know of his appointment?

True enough, but how many of those will even have heard of Toby Young, let alone know of his appointment?

You're asking whether they are concerned, when we've been trying to point out that they should be. It tends to be the role of journalism to find bad things that have happened so that people can care about them - you can't expect everyone to be an expert.

You're asking whether they are concerned, when we've been trying to point out that they should be. It tends to be the role of journalism to find bad things that have happened so that people can care about them - you can't expect everyone to be an expert.

 

But there are varying degrees of 'bad things' - people are likely to care more about victims of, say, natural disasters, than bad gov't appointees.

But there are varying degrees of 'bad things' - people are likely to care more about victims of, say, natural disasters, than bad gov't appointees.

How is that in any way relevant?

How is that in any way relevant?

 

It's relevant because it relates to what people choose to be concerned about - if you allow yourself to be upset about everything bad in the world, you'd end up a basket case!

 

A lot more people will be concerned about, say 3rd world poverty, than the mere appointment of a possible bigot to a committee overseeing universities.

It's relevant because it relates to what people choose to be concerned about - if you allow yourself to be upset about everything bad in the world, you'd end up a basket case!

 

A lot more people will be concerned about, say 3rd world poverty, than the mere appointment of a possible bigot to a committee overseeing universities.

 

Congratulations, you just eliminated everyone applying for public office, you know, it's their actual JOB to be concerned about everything, bigly or teeny tiny. Bigots in high places cause further problems, so it's not an actual minor problem.

 

While one is sat on one's arse flicking through daytime TV, of course, one doesn't have to feel concerned about anything at all, but people paid to do a job to take care of society do have to be and those of us who elect them need to make sure they arent pulling the wool over our eyes. It's called democracy. What you are proposing is laissez faire shoulder-shrugging waddyadoboutitwhatsfordinner.

 

 

Congratulations, you just eliminated everyone applying for public office, you know, it's their actual JOB to be concerned about everything, bigly or teeny tiny.

 

I disagree - politicians are assigned specific areas of responsibility - the Home Secretary deals with issues relating to Crime & Punishment, the Chancellor for the Economy, etc. They can be concerned about other areas on a human level of course, but they are not *responsible* for them.

 

Bigots in high places cause further problems, so it's not an actual minor problem.

Only if they allow their prejudices to affect their remit in overt ways, and even then there are checks & balances to make sure personal agendas don't undermine the rule of law.

 

While one is sat on one's arse flicking through daytime TV, of course, one doesn't have to feel concerned about anything at all, but people paid to do a job to take care of society do have to be and those of us who elect them need to make sure they arent pulling the wool over our eyes. It's called democracy.

 

What you are proposing is laissez faire shoulder-shrugging waddyadoboutitwhatsfordinner.

 

Now who's trying to trivialise the issue?

 

I disagree - politicians are assigned specific areas of responsibility - the Home Secretary deals with issues relating to Crime & Punishment, the Chancellor for the Economy, etc. They can be concerned about other areas on a human level of course, but they are not *responsible* for them.

 

Only if they allow their prejudices to affect their remit in overt ways, and even then there are checks & balances to make sure personal agendas don't undermine the rule of law.

Now who's trying to trivialise the issue?

1. Being assigned responsibility for one area does not mean one is ignorant of other areas, or of having no interest in other issues, or political interest in. Myopic.

 

2. They do, and no there aren't checks. The history of politics is one of poiliticians thinking they can do what they like, and trying to get away with it - we saw it over the Parliamentary Brexit procedures, and we see it on a weekly basis how this government has abandoned ALL of it's election promises. Liars. That's why we need to keep them in check, because politicians are not always honest and open.

 

3. I'm deadly serious. Apathy amongst people is a real danger to their own well-being when faced with liars and self-interested people and organisations. I never under-estimate the will and ability of the rich and powerful to screw the poor. Apparently you do, so that makes you either shruggy-shoulders about it, or else blindly optimistic and gullible. Given your vitriolic attacks on European politicians I'd like to know what you think makes our UK politicians genetically or morally superior to anyone else's - cos I see no evidence for it whatsoever. Feel free to give examples.....