richard_smith237

The issue lies in preference - most parents would not willingly choose state schools over private schools. Grammar schools, where the state covers the fees, present another option; however, they admit only a select few, typically the top 10% of applicants, based on performance in the 11+ entrance exams. Why, then, do parents favour grammar schools over state schools? The answer is evident: state schools simply do not match the standard of education offered by grammar schools. Interestingly, the existence of grammar schools does not seem to attract criticism or provoke concerns about their impact on state schools. So why is there such contention surrounding private schools? The reality is clear - there is nothing inherently wrong with private schools. The opposition often boils down to financial motivations, and thinly veiled moral indifference. So it is a money grab !... this government is now taking educational opportunity away from Children to fill the gaps.

20/20 hindsight is perfect... Although its not 'your' job to asses these risks... Would you have made any mental note of such a risk if observing at an airport ? would you have even noticed it ? One thing is for sure - the Berm wall topped with a thick concrete block was built that way for a reason at one point - for no other reason than curiosity, it would be interesting to know why. Another point - it is only after a disaster that many of us laymen start pointing the finger.

Where do you get your car serviced ?? Is there a dealer network where you can get the brakes changed etc ?

Following on for the above comment.... In Europe, most countries exempt private education from VAT, recognising its role in society and aligning with the principle of supporting educational services. Private education is generally not subject to VAT in... Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece (after revoking its VAT on private education in 2015), Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden These countries typically classify private education as a public good or essential service, aligning its tax treatment with that of public education, which is also exempt from VAT. In Europe, only a few countries apply VAT or equivalent taxes to private education services. These countries usually do so under specific conditions or for particular types of private education. Countries That Tax Private Education: - United Kingdom (as of Jan 2025) - Greece Introduced a 23% VAT on private education in 2015 during austerity measures, this tax was later revoked as it was disaster. - Ireland - Some private education services, particularly non-essential courses or commercial training, are subject - Switzerland - taxes some private educational services if they do not fall under exemptions for compulsory schooling or vocational education. - Norway - Certain specialised or private education services, particularly commercial training programs, are subject to VAT. Thus: the question has to be asked - If the vast majority of the EU identifies that taxing private education is fundamentally flawed, why does the UK Labour government see it differently ????

Consumers and suppliers of private educational services might benefit from a lower VAT rate for several reasons, often rooted in public policy objectives and the unique nature of education as a service.... Why ??... Education as a Public Good Education is often viewed as a public good with significant societal benefits, such as fostering a more educated workforce, promoting equality of opportunity, and enhancing civic participation. Lower VAT rates on private educational services can make higher quality education more accessible. Encouraging Investment in Education A reduced VAT rate can incentivise consumers to invest in their or their children's education, which can have long-term economic and social benefits. Suppliers of educational services may also be encouraged to expand or improve their offerings, knowing that their services are more affordable to consumers. Reducing Inequality Having no VAT on educational services can help reduce financial barriers for families who may otherwise struggle to afford private education.The no VAT policy supports the principle of equal access to education, even in contexts where public education options are limited or less desirable - all the VAT does is ensure the wealthier continue to have access to higher standards of education while those on the 'borderline' of affordability do not. Alignment with Exemptions for Public Education Many countries already exempt or apply reduced VAT rates to public educational services (see next further comment below in another post). Extending similar benefits to private education ensures a level playing field across the EU and recognises the role of private providers in meeting educational needs. Encouraging Diversity and Choice By lowering VAT, governments can promote diversity in educational offerings, allowing consumers to choose services that best meet their needs, whether public or private. This approach respects individual preferences and fosters innovation and competition in the education sector. Long-Term Economic Benefits Education drives economic growth by improving skills and productivity. Lower VAT rates on educational services can be seen as an investment in human capital, which yields returns in terms of higher income and tax revenue in the future. Aggregate Result Mathematics If 10,000 students leave private school for state schools, will 10,000 (or more students from state schools) achieve the same grades ?... Will there be an overall improvement in education (demonstrable in improved grades) ? Or, will there be no difference at all, and we have just potentially lost 10,000 high performers due to a lower standard of education ?

I think these questions are something that will have to asked and answered in an investigation. But, as I understand it (though may well be mistaken), this 2800m runway at Muan is a 'one way runway'... i.e. Take off and landing is always from South to North - it was postulated by the 737 Pilot in the YouTube video that the 'mound' (wall) was used as a 'jet blast' wall... for aircraft taking off (from south to north). It may even be a remnant from previous military uses for the airport. I'm guessing that this will be taken as a significant lesson learned and any Airport with similar features will be removing them at this very moment.

As mentioned by stevenl - but its unclear what this 'incident' was... do you know ?

Solid comment - that also may be why there was no time to manually deploy the landing gear perhaps ? Or, they tried, possibly after an initially hydraulic failure etc... but had no time for a fly around to ensure the gear was down... (all conjecture of course). I'm still wondering how a bird strike could impact the landing gear, unless two incidents were unrelated (which while not impossible, is somewhat implausible).

Agreed... It looks like a thick concrete base on top of a raised earth base... From the 'Pilot video' (on Youtube and posted by lennyW above and earlier on in the thread by Kinnok) - the base can be seen.... (photos taken from the video below). Also a photo, taken from Google Maps, showing the earth mound / wall on top of which the thick concrete base appears to have been located.

That was the first thought that sprung to my mind - was this LPG tanks ???

Come on, the high horse phrase is starting to sound like a broken record. Stop coming the raw prawn.

The statement was made by Joo Jong-wan, aviation policy chief at the Ministry of Transport, at a press briefing this morning. I would suggest he has a better information and data, than basing an assumption on a few Youtube videos! I would suggest ronnie50 is correct and the term 'veered off' is a poor translation... There is no 'assumption' to be made based on a few Youtube videos, there is clear observation. The aircraft hit the 'localiser concrete base' which is in line with the runway. IF the air-craft have 'veered off' the runway, it would have missed the 'concrete base' potentially rendering the crash far less devastating.

Nope they don't.. Its just coincidental that three have occurred this week, there is no pattern other than one imagined...

What's weird about Jeju ???... Its an Island about 3x the size of Phuket, located south of Mainland South Korea - Calling an Airline Jeju Air, i.e. after a place is no different than calling an airline Bangkok Airways or Phuket Air. What is weird is the distorted mentality of some who have no idea how silly their remarks are.

In which case consider the Jeju air tragedy whereby the two sole survivors were cabin crew seated in the tail of the aircraft.

You think the earth is flat, your assurances are somewhat empty. I would argue that you exhibit the tendencies of a contrarian science denier, perhaps even playing the role of a provocative devil's advocate. I struggle to fathom how someone capable of articulating arguments so skillfully could harbor such a profound distrust in science. There is overwhelming scientific evidence supports the Earth's movement in space. The Foucault Pendulum experiment (1851) demonstrates Earth's rotation. A freely swinging pendulum changes its plane of oscillation due to Earth's rotation, a phenomenon that cannot be explained without a rotating Earth. Stellar Parallax, first measured in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel, provides clear evidence of Earth's orbit around the Sun. The apparent shift in position of nearby stars against the background of distant stars occurs only because Earth changes its position in space. Galileo's persecution by the Church is a well-documented historical fact. While he may have been celebrated early on, his advocacy for heliocentrism led to the trial and his house arrest, as confirmed by primary historical documents from the 17th century such as.... Galileo’s Trial Documents (1633), Acts of the Holy Office (Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Vatican). The trial records, including interrogations and verdicts, document Galileo's prosecution for his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), which argued for heliocentrism. The Church accused Galileo of violating the 1616 decree by promoting heliocentrism as fact, not merely as a hypothesis. The formal sentence from June 22, 1633, condemned Galileo to house arrest and required him to recant his views. Consequently, Galileo, under threat of torture, was forced to recant his heliocentric beliefs in a formal ceremony. His oath of abjuration survives and reads: "I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies..." There was also the Correspondence with Cardinal Bellarmine, a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine to Galileo (1615) which clarified the Church’s position on heliocentrism and warned Galileo not to defend it as fact. This letter reflects the Church's initial caution toward Galileo. There are records from the Inquisition, namely The Manuscript of the Deposition (1632–1633) containing testimonies from officials of the Roman Inquisition and Galileo himself . These outline the charges and evidence presented against Galileo, including his writings and the Church's interpretation of Scripture. Then there is the Papal decree and enforcement; Pope Papal Bull (Urban VIII) approved the trial and supported the Inquisition's sentence against Galileo. His opposition to Galileo was partially influenced by personal and political grievances. There are also additional sources, such as “Galileo’s Daughter” by Dava Sobel and “The Crime of Galileo” by Giorgio de Santillana which provide detailed accounts based on the primary documents listed above. Additionally, The Vatican’s 1965 publication of trial documents in Documenti del Processo di Galileo makes many of these records publicly accessible. The quotes you have provided, are either taken out of context or reflect philosophical musings rather than empirical conclusions. For example, Stephen Hawking's comment in The Grand Design about models refers to the philosophical nature of frameworks, not evidence against heliocentrism. Modern physics overwhelmingly supports a heliocentric model. But, to go back on your comment regarding experiments carried out in the 18th and19th and centuries: There is modern evidence beyond the classical experiments. - Satellite technology, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), requires precise calculations that account for Earth's rotation and orbit. These technologies are direct, practical proof of Earth's motion. - The CMB dipole anisotropy, detected by the COBE satellite, shows Earth's motion relative to the cosmic microwave background. Finally, your claim that experiments during the 18th and 19th centuries, such as those by François Arago, disproved the heliocentric model and were "memory-holed" is demonstrably false. François Arago's work focused on light's behavior, particularly its refraction, polarisation, and speed, which supported the wave theory of light and did not challenge heliocentrism. On the contrary, key experiments from that period reinforced heliocentrism such as... - Stellar parallax, first measured by Friedrich Bessel in 1838, provided direct evidence of Earth's orbit by observing the apparent shift in nearby stars relative to the background stars. - Similarly, the Foucault Pendulum (1851) demonstrated Earth's rotation, and stellar aberration, discovered earlier by James Bradley, confirmed Earth's motion through space. - The Michelson-Morley experiment (1887), while initially designed to detect the "aether," supported the consistent speed of light in all directions, aligning with Earth's motion and later explained by Einstein's relativity. Far from being suppressed, these experiments were widely documented and remain foundational in modern physics. Assertions of "memory-holing" are baseless.

Your figures (which you've taken from Compare the Market website). UK Yearly accidents 2022: 333,296 / 913 per day https://www.comparethemarket.com/car-insurance/news/road-traffic-accidents/ In 2022 the UK had: 1,695 road fatalities, Thailand Yearly accidents 2023: 939,713 / 2574 per day https://www.nationthailand.com/thailand/general/40023780?utm_source=chatgpt.com In 2023 the Thailand had: 14,737 road fatalities (in reality this figure is closer to 20,000 according to WHO estimates) Accidents Involving 4-Wheeled+ Vehicles As there no stats separating motorcycle accidents we have to 'assume that the proportion of accidents involving 4-wheeled+ vehicles matches their proportion in the total vehicle population. UK (96% of registered vehicles are 4 wheels or more) Accidents Involving 4-Wheeled+ Vehicles = 333,296 × 0.96 = 319,964 Thailand (33% of registered vehicles are 4 wheels or more) Accidents Involving 4-Wheeled+ Vehicles = 939,713 × 0.33 = 310,105 Fatality Rate per Accident for 4-Wheeled+ Vehicles Fatality Rate per Accident (UK) = 1,345 / 319,964 = 0.0042 fatalities per accident. Fatality Rate per Accident (Thailand) = 4,000 / 310,105 = 0.0129 fatalities per accident. The results reflect the proportionate involvement of 4-wheeled+ vehicles in accidents and highlight that the fatality rate per accident for Thailand is ~ 3x the UK. You quoted Benjamin Disraeli; "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".. and the above information paints with a very board brush, nevertheless a picture is painted. Also note - people tend not to wear seatbelts in Thailand which also heavily impacts Thailands fatality statics and may also account for the 3x factor of deaths. But already the above information places the Thailand statistic a lot closer to the UK statistic than your TWELVE times... You studied road safety stats for 30 years you say ???... you completely ignored the proportional difference between motorcycles and cars between countries when making your comparison. You'll never admit that though, for contrary to what you post you are arguing a point and have in fact presented distorted stats to fit your conclusion. Below is an example of your Bias: The number you quoted is less than half of what is quoted by the nation. You fail to mention that the number of reported accidents might be higher for Thailand too, as not all accidents are reported. In fact as I pointed out earlier in the thread - the amount of reported accidents in the UK is probably much higher because of insurance excess - particularly minor accidents. Whereas in Thailand, its likely the amount of reported accidents is much higher because fewer people have insurance full stop.

1) Unless the antenna is bent - the image below shows the lens distortion flattening the horizon. 2) The lens distortion is such that the horizon appears slightly concave, further confirming lens distortion. Using this 121,000 ft altitude video is an extremely weak attempt to try and squeeze out any validity for the flat earth idea - surely you can see the basic flaws [rattlesnake] ?

Of course... but not because 'the scale is too vast to grasp' but because the scale is too vast to distinguish any discernible movement over such a short time span of humanity. You seem to be criticising people resorting to 'fact' as a weakness - of course you are arguing that fact, but this discussion then gets as silly as arguing with someone who believes were in a digital construct. This is incorrect. So far, nobody has rationally explained the footage of a level surface visible at 121,000 feet, one poster even stating that "science" says the curve should be visible at 35,000… and then defaulting to the notion that the deception would be too big to accept before moving on to another aspect of the issue, leaving this one unresolved. Lens distortion is often used by flat earthers to argue against any image which shows the curvature of the earth. Equally, so for the same reasons, accusations of lens distortion of any image which shows a level horizon at 121,000 feet can also be argued. I'll show this in the the next post I make using screenshots from the 121,000 ft video. Field of view is also another reason, without a wide enough field of view, the horizon can appear flat. Wider perspectives show more curvature. This is anecdotal - however, I have a close friend who flew Concorde and saw the curvature of the Earth first hand at 60,000 feet (or thereabouts) - I trust his observations. The post-Reformation historical context does not demonstrate that the adoption of the heliocentric model was driven solely by political and ideological reasons. Instead, the switch to heliocentrism emerged primarily from advancements in observational astronomy, mathematics, and the scientific method. Pioneers like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler provided empirical evidence and mathematical models that challenged the geocentric worldview, such as the phases of Venus and the elliptical orbits of planets. The transition to heliocentrism was fundamentally rooted in a scientific revolution rather than being a premeditated political or ideological scheme.

They were cabin crew. Must have been in the very back behind the passenger seats. Yep.. I'm wondering what saved them vs the last row of passengers... i.e. could the bulkhead have provided additional strength etc, or seated backwards made the difference... closest to the door and those seconds mattered ?

Imagine the survivors horror as everyone you have interacted with for the past 4 hours is now dead.. (bar one person)... I'd imagine thats going to be tough to deal with, even in light of the euphoria of surviving. I'm sure we'll find out in due course.. But I wonder where 'in the tail' section of the air-craft they were seated and why they survived while everyone else tragically perished.

At speed, the rudder can counteract the yaw caused by reverse thrust from one engine. As an aircraft slow's the rudder would be less effective... This air-craft did not slow, so I'm guessing its possible that the reverse thrust and yaw from one engine could have been counteracted by the pilot (using the rudder)... If the reverse thrust from one engine was used at all.

Well thats that then... Cleary the foreigners fault because you saw two incidents of foreigners getting annoyed....

There are no young men who use it ?

Thanks.. that makes a lot more sense, I can see that now in the 'Pilot Vid' (posted above)... The localiser base is raised about 10 ft... Solid concrete....