Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
I used to drink in there. I am too busy and have too many kids to get much of a chance to go out. And when I do, I seem to gravitate to the quay

I'm not one for resorting to violence. Especially not on the basis of having ideological differences.
What do you make of Antifa(scism) and "bash the fash"?


@Greyblades @Beskar About the Kids Rights Index report:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
In this way countries that score the lowest possible score on all indicators within a specific domain, will also score very low on the total KidsRights Index. In the KidsRights Index 2017 this is the case for
Afghanistan (rank 164), Central African Republic (rank 165), New Zealand (rank 158), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (rank 156) and Vanuatu (rank 162).
Especially for New Zealand and the United Kingdom this resulted in a significantly lower score than was the case in earlier versions of the KidsRights Index.
New Zealand dropped from rank 45 to rank 158 in 2017 and the United Kingdom moved down from rank 11 to rank 156 in 2017.
According to the CRC Committee, New Zealand (158th), the United Kingdom (156th) Italy (83rd) and Luxembourg (56th), for example,
could do more to improve the enabling environment they have built for children’s rights. These wealthy countries should be able to
invest more in children’s rights, but fail to do so sufficiently. Thailand (8th) and Tunisia (9th) on the other hand deserve honourable mentions.
These countries rank relatively high compared to their economic status, as they do exceptionally well in cultivating an enabling environment for child rights.
Thailand for examples scores ‘good’ on the enabling legislation for children’s rights. In the 2017 ranking Thailand even climbed from rank 21 in the KidsRights Index
2016 to rank 8, especially owing to improved scores on primary and secondary school participation in domain 3 ‘Education).
Tunisia scores well on domain 5 ‘the enabling environment for child rights. The country also has a low adolescent births rate, therefore scoring relatively high on domain 4 ‘Protection’ (rank 22).
Among these countries, Brunei Darussalem (111 465), Peru (87>62) and South Africa (109>84) deserve honourable mentions for having risen among the ranks significantly since last year’s Index.
These countries score relatively high as they have improved substantially in fostering an enabling environment for children’s rights. To the contrary,
the United Kingdom (11>156), New Zealand (45>158), Slovakia (6>107), Saudi Arabia (80>144), Maldives (62>111) and Ireland (7>41) score remarkably poor compared to 2016
and are urged to do more to foster the rights of their youngest generation. The remaining two countries with striking differences between the 2017 and the 2016 results
are Canada (72>45) and Turkmenistan (85>42). For these countries, data on indicators that was previously not available caused a jump in their ranking.
According to the CRC, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children,
so that when decisions are taken about the child they reflect what will serve the child best. On taking the best interests of the child at heart,
there is not a country in the world that scores ‘good’, while 48 countries score ‘bad’, including Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom.
The (non-)availability of data remains influential. Of the twenty-seven countries that were subjected to CRC state reporting in 2016
thirteen countries realized the lowest possible score on the indicator collection and analysis of disaggregated data (indicating that the CO contains only negative remarks on this aspect).
These countries are Benin, Brunei Darussalam, France, Haiti, Ireland, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia and the United Kingdom.


TLDR: UK scores are still very high (higher than Thailand's) except for "Child Rights Environment", because (re: Collection and Analysis of Disaggregate Data) insufficient data from the year of reporting changes was submitted and that brought the score for the category down to 'near-zero', which in turn brought the geometric average down to near-zero. A similar effect occurred with a number of other European and Anglophone countries. In other words, the incomplete older format automatically scored lower for the new standards.

Their work seems to be perfectly valid and appropriate. You just didn't understand the methodology. On the other hand, this also renders Beskar's use of the measure in his criticism of "Strong and Stable" ineffective. The UK will presumably rise again in 2018 once they can submit the appropriate data and records. The year 2017 could be regarded as one in which broad comparisons along this ranking must be considered unreliable due to so many countries suffering on a basically administrative issue.