youreavinalaff

We are going around in circles here. Unless one studied a degree in Thailand, there is no advantage when walking into a Thai school classroom for the first time. When I've mentored new teachers in the past they have looked on in shock and even horror at many of the things they've seen and been told. To the point that one lasted only 2 days. They spent the remaining time of their B visa on the beaches in Chonburi and Cha am.

I agree to an extent. However, every level of certification you quote will still walk into a Thai classroom with no experience. Even those with a Tefl have never really walked into a classroom with no safety net. I was involved in recruitment at a private school in Thailand. Had the laws allowed, I would have taken a teacher with 10 years experience with no degree, a good CV and references, above a BEd or MEd holder just off the plane every day of the week.

Chocolate snobbery. That's funny. With regards to vinegar, I use the Thai brands. Add some home prepared pickling spices and some small onions, and let stand for a week or so. Great pickled onions and even better vinegar when onions have been eaten.

How about a Doctor just out of medical school with no experience of face to face assessments? Would you hire a carpenter who learnt carpentry from a book? A plumber who has never actually done any plumbing? If you were riding your motorcycle down the road and you had a problem, would you drive past the young lad in a hut that has been fixing bikes for 10 years because he didn't graduate as a mechanic? A university degree does nothing more than prepare you for your career, that is if you actually follow a career based on your degree. The real work starts after graduation.. You could study education for 20 years and you would still struggle in the classroom when you first set out. Anyhow, I would guess anyone with an education degree from a western country would struggle immensely in Thailand. The whole system is set up in a way that would go against most things studied. I've never come across and Education degree that teaches the no fail policy, how a cup of coffee can magic a zero into a one, how teachers can write their own tests and show the questions to the students pre test, get told to remove zeros for students who did not turn up for over 50% of the classes, how to accept a print out from Google as the student's own work............I could go on. Teaching in Thailand is not a science. It's an art. There are so many variants, no amount of study or university lectures can prepare you, unless you wish to teach the same way as the Thai teachers. Experience is everything. How to focus on those that want to learn whilst making sure those that don't just about tow the line. How to model the lesson so that all students get what they need out of it. How to design the tests so they fit what has been taught. Tests? I spoke listening and speaking at most schools I taught at. I therefore requested that I give oral tests and not written. That way, the kids that struggled with reading and writing would not lose out on a good grade in a subject they were good at. Especially those that I suspected were dyslexic. The same kids that the university degree holding Thai teachers threw under the bus as they didn't understand, or didn't want to acknowledge, that some of the kids were not stupid but had learning disabilities.

It does make me chuckle when I read threads like this. Teachers must have a degree. If they don't have one, they cannot teach as they will not know what to do in the classroom, how to teach and educate the students, how to deal with different levels of intelligence and understanding and overall will not do a good job. Then, the Thai teachers and schools are berated for their poor standards. All run by an education system where all educators hold a university degree. Funny, isn't it?

I can see your point and this is a point of contention in the discussions. Bronson' s lawyers believe the wording of the life sentence would mean it has expired and that he only received that sentence because of his reputation. As mentioned before, even the hostage believes this. Should that be the only reason for him being held, it could be suggested that serving 23 years for hostage taking, when the recommended term for judges to issue was alot less, should be enough for him to be paroled. As I said, it is an interesting case. Unfortunately, or fortunately for him if he is released and behaves, there is only one way to find out.

Not bait. Conversation.

I said nothing about pervert, sex pest or exposing one's self. You are twisting once again. I guess you have never been in a public changing room. I have and understand that it is likely there will be naked people getting changed or dressed. That is why changing rooms in public places are single sex.

What part if "discretionary" do you not understand? Hostage taking was not a life sentence crime at the time of the offense. It's all in the lawyers brief.

Discretionary sentence that expired in 2003. That was the situation. Charles Bronson, as pointed out by the lawyers, has only ever been sentenced to 33 years imprisonment. He has been in far longer. Longer still if you consider the fact, with the exception of whole life tarrifs, very few pridoners see out the entirety of their sentence. Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning what he did. I'm not suggesting he should or should not be released. I'm asking on what grounds he can legally be detained.

Hyperbole? This is a yes or no question. It would be nice for you to use either of those words in your one word answer. Here is the question.....would you find it an acceptable situation where female members of your family told you there was someone in the same, female only changing room they were in who was naked and showing a penis?

A discretionary life sentence to last for 3 years. Expired in 2003.

In reality, the would really need to charge him with another crime to keep him in. To me, that's what makes his case intriguing. I'm sure his lawyers will ask what he is being kept inside for.

Sorry? I don't understand your comment. I asked a genuine question. As an official photographer i would imagine you would know the answer

What were those in the parade proud of ?

That's one opinion. However, is it legal to keep someone in prison based on an opinion? This appears to be different to usual parole hearings. It's not a case of him being let out early. It's a case of can we still hold him as his sentence has expired. Reputations should be overlooked to a certain degree. As an example, look at how long the Krays stayed inside. Each of them jailed only for one murder. Many murderers were released whilst those two were in prison. Most having served less than their original sentence. The Krays were kept in because of other crimes they were thought to have committed Remember, no one goes to prison for committing a crime. They go to prison for getting caught, found guilty and being sentenced.

No one is trying to hang onto it. The Falkland Islanders voted to remain British.

Be careful what you wish for. You might drown in it.

1690 was not in 16th century

No. Very different from Chagos, which were inhabited by indigenous people. That part of British history is not a proud moment.

That is one government. Not successive. Also, as I pointed out earlier, your original post didn't give the full story. I believe, with no proof to back your claim, your original post is an unsubstantiated.

If you wish to continue pre dating, the first recorded British landings at Falklands were actually in 1690. At that time they were uninhibited.

The British have been on Falklands since 18th century.

Show us then.

The Crown are net contributors to the UK economy. They pay their way. Sure, publications will show that the "state" pays. However, where does the state get the funds from?