UK General Election 2017

[Beskar]

Neither of us are native to Exeter.

The plot thickens.

[Husar]

You know, it is going to turn out they are related...

Neither of us are native to Exeter.

Well, as the nationalists like to point out, it's an island, there are only so many choices: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...31959120070801

[Beskar]

Well, as the nationalists like to point out, it's an island, there are only so many choices: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...31959120070801

Well, if they are both not from Exeter, then they could both hypothetically moved there together. They could be brothers, or even alter egos. If one was from Exeter and the other wasn't, then it would have been less likely they were related.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I walked right into that one.

My apologies.

It's OK, Grockles are always making fun of us.

We've doubtless passed on the street. Heavitree is not more than 30 streets. Do you drink at any of the locals?

Probably.

Being a student originally I tend towards pubs in Town, but my local is the Bowling Green. Still not totally sure about the new management.

I don't think so, if you had actually come too close to one another there'd either have been an enormous explosion or a black hole.

Or a massive punch up.

You know, it is going to turn out they are related...

Neither of us are native to Exeter.

Not even natives of Devon irrc. Exeter is really quite cosmopolitan.

[Husar]

Well, if they are both not from Exeter, then they could both hypothetically moved there together. They could be brothers, or even alter egos. If one was from Exeter and the other wasn't, then it would have been less likely they were related.

Way to ruin an incest joke.

[Beskar]

Bitter reality expressed through the lens of comedy. Many a true word is spoken in jest.

[Pannonian]

I've seen that video elsewhere. Did you get shared that video on Facebook or something similar? I remember last year, when I was posting account after account from resigned shadow ministers and aides, and you or someone posted a Jonathan Pie video and acted as though it was the height of wit and wisdom.

[Beskar]

I've seen that video elsewhere. Did you get shared that video on Facebook or something similar? I remember last year, when I was posting account after account from resigned shadow ministers and aides, and you or someone posted a Jonathan Pie video and acted as though it was the height of wit and wisdom.

I do follow his page on Facebook and channel on youtube. I find it entertaining and I usually find that I agree with his viewpoint more often than not. This particular video is highlighting many things I have expressed before but in a more comedian and engaging fashion.

Though height of wit and wisdom is incorrect. I posted a video giving an alternative viewpoint of the situation which you found contemptible.

[Pannonian]

I do follow his page on Facebook and channel on youtube. I find it entertaining and I usually find that I agree with his viewpoint more often than not. This particular video is highlighting many things I have expressed before but in a more comedian and engaging fashion.

Though height of wit and wisdom is incorrect. I posted a video giving an alternative viewpoint of the situation which you found contemptible.

Probably because I was quoting primary sources at the time, from people who'd worked with Corbyn and found him to be incompetent, and then you posted a comment from a comedian to refute these primary accounts. "Bitter reality expressed through the lens of comedy. Many a true word is spoken in jest" apparently, whilst denying what people who are close to the actual events are saying.

[Beskar]

UK plummets from 11th to 156th in global children's rights rankings
Strong and Stable

The UK has been accused of employing “inadequate” provision for children’s rights protection after it fell dramatically in global rankings for child rights within a year, from 11th to 156th.

Serious concerns have been raised about structural discrimination in the UK, including Muslim children facing increased discrimination following recent anti-terrorism measures, and a rise in discrimination against gypsy and refugee children in recent years.

The UK now ranks among the bottom 10 global performers in the arena of improving rights of the child, after it achieved the lowest-possible score across all six available indicators in the domain of Child Rights Environment (CRE), according to the KidsRights Index 2017.

[Idaho]

Being a student originally I tend towards pubs in Town, but my local is the Bowling Green. Still not totally sure about the new management.

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

Or a massive punch up.

I'm not one for resorting to violence. Especially not on the basis of having ideological differences.

Not even natives of Devon irrc. Exeter is really quite cosmopolitan.

I'm from the south east.

Exeter is a funny mix. Much more recent immigration than much of the rest of the country. The large number of Chinese students seem to be the most notable new group.

[Greyblades]

UK plummets from 11th to 156th in global children's rights rankings
Strong and Stable

Pray, independant, tell me what this actually means. What children's rights are being denied, what abuses are being inflicted, what metric and method does the UNCRC and unicef employ in their assessments and why in gods name does thailand, the fucking paedophilia tourism capital of the world rank higher than all but 7 of the first world nations?


I mean look at the UK's score:
Life:0.966/10
Health 0.978/10
Education 0.844/10
Protection 0.959/10
Child Rights Environment 0.010/10

What in gods name is Child Rights Enviroment?

Indicators are
- Non-discrimination
- Best interest of the child
- Respect for the views of the child/child participation
- Enabling legislation
- Best available budget
- Collection and analysis of disaggregate data
- State-civil society cooperation for child rights

Well that doesnt look subjective in the extreme. What are the criteria for marking?

As explained earlier, in the KidsRights Index 2017, domain 5 (‘Enabling Environment for Child Rights’) has been updated with all Concluding Observations (COs) adopted by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2016.

Scoring System:
Score 1 ‘bad’ = only negative remarks
Score 2 ‘average’ = negative and positive remarks
Score 3 ‘good’ = only positive remarks
NA = not addressed

http://www.kidsrightsindex.org/Porta...-11-124125-077

We were put below child prostitute central because the UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child concluding observations were negative. Not findings, not statistics, the negative comments of a committee in the most abused international organization in the world.

The same committee that gave Indonesia a complete pass.

[Pannonian]

And the Labour campaign is being run by a bloke who was a member of the Communist party this time last year. Not only that, but he's an apologist for Stalin and North Korea as well. Still, he has personal connections to Jeremy Corbyn and Len McCluskey, so he's naturally been welcomed by the Labour leader.

Oh, and in true Corbyn-esque style, he has to downplay any condemnation of Islamist terrorism as well by bringing in western imperialism as the greater evil. Andrew Murray on the Paris attacks:

We condemn the attacks in Paris unreservedly. But we also need to say that the barbarism we condemn in Paris is minute compared to the barbarism wrought by imperialism across the planet in the last thirteen years and we must condemn that barbarism all the more strongly.

Andrew Murray, 19th January 2015

Note who introduces him.

[Idaho]

Tory candidate for Exeter just knocked on the door. He used to live on the same street. He always seems like the lights are on but no one is really home.

[Montmorency]

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.

[Idaho]

And the Labour campaign is being run by a bloke who was a member of the Communist party this time last year. Not only that, but he's an apologist for Stalin and North Korea as well. Still, he has personal connections to Jeremy Corbyn and Len McCluskey, so he's naturally been welcomed by the Labour leader.

Oh, and in true Corbyn-esque style, he has to downplay any condemnation of Islamist terrorism as well by bringing in western imperialism as the greater evil. Andrew Murray on the Paris attacks:

We condemn the attacks in Paris unreservedly. But we also need to say that the barbarism we condemn in Paris is minute compared to the barbarism wrought by imperialism across the planet in the last thirteen years and we must condemn that barbarism all the more strongly.

Andrew Murray, 19th January 2015

Note who introduces him.

It is. Unequivocally.

Paris attacks = a few hundred. Iraq invasion = 1 million.

[Greyblades]

Their work seems to be perfectly valid and appropriate. You just didn't understand the methodology.

I understand the methodolgy I just find it's catagories too subjective for applicability and too reliant on the assessment of a source with a reputation of blatant partiality.

How can we hold valid the assessment of a organization that often makes such counter productive and antithetical decisions such as electing saudi arabia as the head of a women's rights comission?

How can it be a vaild and appropriate assessment when one of the paramiters is so broad and undefined as the "Best interest of the child" or "Respect for the views of the child"?

[Pannonian]

"Only in unity, north and south, east and West, European and middle Eastern will we defeat the NATO leaders."
Andrew Murray, currently heading the Labour party's 2017 general election campaign.

[Montmorency]

I understand the methodolgy I just find it's catagories too subjective for applicability and too reliant on the assessment of a source with a reputation of blatant partiality.

How can we hold valid the assessment of a organization that often makes such counter productive and antithetical decisions such as electing saudi arabia as the head of a women's rights comission?

How can it be a vaild and appropriate assessment when one of the paramiters is so broad and undefined as the "Best interest of the child" or "Respect for the views of the child"?

First of all, it's important to realize that the Kids Rights foundation is not affiliated with or a part of the United Nations. Secondly, any given office that may actually operate under the auspices of the UN are independent bureaucratic and technocratic agencies - whereas commission heads are elected by national representatives, typically on a rotating basis, with respect to the Women's Status Commission a secret ballot of 13 countries every four years. So your complaint just isn't relevant.

As to the actual categories of assessment, you would find it difficult to argue against them if you read them. They are only broad and undefined inasmuch as you don't understand them:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Domain 1. Life
Under-5 mortality rate - Probability of dying between birth and exactly 5 years of age, expressed per 1,000 live births.
Life expectancy at birth - Number of years newborn children would live if subject to the mortality risks prevailing for the cross
section of population at the time of their birth.
Maternal mortality ratio - Number of deaths of women from pregnancy-related causes per 100,000 live births during the same time
period.
Domain 2. Health
Underweight - Number of under-fives falling below minus 2 standard deviations (moderate and severe) and minus 3 standard
deviations (severe) from the median weight-for-age of the reference population.
Immunization (MCV1) - Percentage of surviving infants who received the first dose of the measles-containing vaccine.
Use of improved drinking water sources - Percentage of the population using any of the following as their main drinking water
source: drinking water supply piped into dwelling, plot, yard or neighbor’s yard; public tap or standpipe; tube well or borehole; protected
dug well; protected spring; rainwater; bottled water plus one of the previous sources as their secondary source.
Use of improved sanitation facilities - Percentage of the population using any of the following sanitation facilities, not shared
with other households: flush or pour-flush latrine connected to a piped sewerage system, septic tank or pit latrine; ventilated improved
pit latrine; pit latrine with a slab; composting toilet.
Domain 3. Education
Primary school participation = Primary school net enrolment ratio - Number of children enrolled in primary or secondary school
who are of official primary school age, expressed as a percentage of the total number of children of official primary school age.
Because of the inclusion of primary-school-aged children enrolled in secondary school, this indicator can also be referred to as a
primary adjusted net enrolment ratio.
Secondary school participation = Secondary school net enrolment ratio - Number of children enrolled in secondary school
who are of official secondary school age, expressed as a percentage of the total number of children of official secondary school age.
Secondary net enrolment ratio does not include secondary-school-age children enrolled in tertiary education, owing to challenges in
age reporting and recording at that level.
Primary school enrolment ratio (female as % of male) - Number of children enrolled in primary or secondary school who are
of official primary school age, expressed as females as a percentage of males.
Secondary school enrolment ratios (female as % of male) - Number of children enrolled in secondary school who are of
official primary school age, expressed as females as a percentage of males.
Survival rate to last grade of primary (female as % of male) - Percentage of children entering the first grade of primary
school who eventually reach the last grade of primary school, expressed as females as a percentage of males.
Primary school net attendance ratio (rural) = Primary school net attendance ratio - Number of children attending primary or
secondary school who are of official primary school age, expressed as a percentage of the total number of children of official primary
school age (in rural areas).
Domain 4. Protection
Child labour - Percentage of children 5–14 years old involved in child labour at the moment of the survey. A child is considered to be
involved in child labour under the following conditions: (a) children 5–11 years old who, during the reference week, did at least 1 hour of
economic activity or at least 28 hours of household chores, or (b) children 12–14 years old who, during the reference week, did at least
14 hours of economic activity or at least 28 hours of household chores.
Adolescent birth rate - Number of births per 1,000 adolescent girls aged 15–19.
Birth registration - Percentage of children less than 5 years old who were registered at the moment of the survey. The numerator of
this indicator includes children reported to have a birth certificate, regardless of whether or not it was seen by the interviewer, and those
without a birth certificate whose mother or caregiver says the birth has been registered.
Domain 5. Enabling Environment for Child Rights
Non-discrimination (Article 2) - The extent to which a country has operationalized the general principle of non-discrimination. The
Convention applies to all children, whatever their race, religion or abilities; whatever they think or say, whatever type of family they
come from. It doesn’t matter where children live, what language they speak, what their parents do, whether they are boys or girls, what
their culture is, whether they have a disability or whether they are rich or poor. No child should be discriminated unfairly on any basis.
Best interests of the child (Article 3) - The extent to which a country has operationalized the general principle of the best interests
of the child. The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do
what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly
applies to budget, policy and law makers, public or private welfare institutions, courts of law and administrative authorities.
Enabling legislation (Article 4) - The extent to which there is a basic ‘infrastructure’ for making and implementing child rights policy,
with a particular emphasis on the legal framework for protecting and promoting children’s rights. According to the CRC, States Parties
shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the Convention.
Best available budget (Article 4) - The extent to which there is a basic ‘infrastructure’ for making and implementing child rights
policy in the form of providing the maximum resources available to a country for protecting and promoting children’s rights. With
regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available
resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation.
Respect for the views of the child/child participation (Article 12) – The extent to which a country has operationalized the
general principle of respect for the views of the child. When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right
to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account. This does not mean that children can now tell their
parents or others what to decide or do. The CRC encourages adults to listen to and seriously consider the opinions of children and
to involve them in decision-making – but not to give children authority over adults. Article 12 does not interfere with the parental right
and responsibility to direct and guide their child in exercising her/his rights or with the parental right to express their views on matters
affecting their children. Moreover, the Convention recognizes that the level of a child’s participation in decisions must be appropriate
to the child’s level of maturity or evolving capacities. Children’s ability to form and express their opinions usually develops with age
and most adults will naturally give the views of teenagers greater weight than those of a preschooler, whether in family, legal or
administrative decisions. Collection and analysis of disaggregate data (implied in Article 4) – The extent to which there is a basic ‘infrastructure’ for
making and implementing child rights policy in the form of the collection and analysis of disaggregated data (data collected on the
situation of particular (groups of) children in a country or children in a particular location) to protect and promote children’s rights.
State – civil society cooperation for child rights (implied in Articles 3 and 5) – The extent to which there is a basic ‘infrastructure’ for
making and implementing child rights policy in the form of an effective cooperation for children’s rights between the state and civil
society.

[Pannonian]

It is. Unequivocally.

Paris attacks = a few hundred. Iraq invasion = 1 million.

"Paris reaps whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East"
Stop the War Coalition, immediately following the Paris attacks in which 130 were killed (17th? November 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn attends Stop the War Coalition Christmas fundraiser, December 2015.

Jeremy Corbyn appoints former chair of the Stop the War Coalition to head the Labour party general election campaign, May 2017.

Did I mention that Andrew Murray was chief of staff of Len McCluskey, Corbyn's biggest union ally, who has promised to use his union's funds to pay for Momentum, Corbyn's personal support group? How much public money is Corbyn's group of friends distributing among themselves?

[Greyblades]

First of all, it's important to realize that the Kids Rights foundation is not affiliated with or a part of the United Nations

I dont see how that matters considering I showed they base thier entire scoring system for the contested category on the United Nation's commentary. How closely they follow it may be up for debate but it is blatant they do not contribute thier own work to the result.

Secondly, any given office that may actually operate under the auspices of the UN are independent bureaucratic and technocratic agencies - whereas commission heads are elected by national representatives, typically on a rotating basis, with respect to the Women's Status Commission a secret ballot of 13 countries every four years. So your complaint just isn't relevant.

Sir you are wrong, these convention members are elected not appointed through beuracracy and are equally vulnerable to political exploitation as the women's status commission.

Such an organization with such a history of cronyism cannot be trusted to assess a nation without bias.

As to the actual categories of assessment, you would find it difficult to argue against them if you read them. They are only broad and undefined inasmuch as you don't understand them:

Do not presume to deride my understanding when you yourself clearly have not comprehended my contentions:

Best interests of the child (Article 3) - The extent to which a country has operationalized the general principle of the best interests of the child. The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers, public or private welfare institutions, courts of law and administrative authorities.

No definition or criteria for what counts as "best for a child" or how the comittee deduces such despite the term having as many differing definitions as there are people upon the earth.

Respect for the views of the child/child participation (Article 12) – The extent to which a country has operationalized the general principle of respect for the views of the child. When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account.

This does not mean that children can now tell their parents or others what to decide or do. The CRC encourages adults to listen to and seriously consider the opinions of children and to involve them in decision-making – but not to give children authority over adults. Article 12 does not interfere with the parental right and responsibility to direct and guide their child in exercising her/his rights or with the parental right to express their views on matters affecting their children.

Moreover, the Convention recognizes that the level of a child’s participation in decisions must be appropriate to the child’s level of maturity or evolving capacities. Children’s ability to form and express their opinions usually develops with age and most adults will naturally give the views of teenagers greater weight than those of a preschooler, whether in family, legal or administrative decisions.

We are deemed under performing in "respecting the views of children", this is despite achieving a neutral closing statement in 2006 (page 16) and there being no change in free speech laws in the interregnum, raising the question of what exactly did this comittee object to now that it didnt then.

You have not in any way addressed the key issue that I have with this, by which that our score can be affected due to, for whatever reason, the review by this comittee elicited something so utterly unquantifiable as a "negative concluding observations". No qualifier on what the content of these observations was or whether or not it's negativity is sourced from the comittees personal biases, merely operating on an assumption that because a comittee ended a review on what the Kids Rights Index interprited as a sour note an entire nation failed.

The information for domain 5 - ‘Child Rights Environment’ - derived from the qualitative Concluding Observations is scored on a scale between 1 and 3. The actual score assigned to each sub-indicator is exclusively based on the language used by the CRC Committee in the Concluding Observations. The resulting final scores have also been standardized.

http://www.kidsrightsindex.org/Porta...-11-124125-077 - Page 3

There is no sound mind that would consider such results useful or even valid with such methodology making it's subsequent devaluing of the national scores of the United Kingdom and New Zealand exceedingly egregious and calls into question the very usefulness of this KidsRightsIndex.

[Montmorency]

I dont see how that matters considering I showed they base thier entire scoring system for the contested category on the United Nation's commentary.

Most of the data is reported by participating governments.

Sir you are wrong, these convention members are elected not appointed through beuracracy

I don't think you understand what you are referring to. As I said, convention members are member-states (through their representatives). Agencies and committees of the UN that perform investigative, statistical, or advocacy work are neither member states nor their representatives - they are mostly academic and bureaucratic staff. The link you post about the Committee on the Rights of the Child in fact says as much, suggesting you did not read it.

No definition or criteria for what counts as "best for a child" or how the comittee deduces such despite the term having as many differing definitions as there are people upon the earth.

The definitions are provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The group providing the rankings explicitly describes the Convention as the basis for the rankings. That's the whole point.

We are deemed under performing in "respecting the views of children", this is despite achieving a neutral closing statement in 2006 (page 16) and there being no change in free speech laws in the interregnum, raising the question of what exactly did this comittee object to now that it didnt then.

Did you read my post explaining just this? From the report:

Disaggregated data, that is data collected on the situation of (particular groups of) children in a country, are important to be able to
drive decisions on the development of children´s rights. Better collection and analysis of the data can assist in realizing and protecting
the rights of all children as decisions can be taken on the specific needs of particular groups of children, based on for example income,
sex, age, race or ethnicity. As discussed previously, countries worldwide should do more to collected disaggregated data.
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. The remaining countries realized an
‘average’ score (indicating a combination of positive and negative remarks in the latest Concluding Observations).
Only thirteen countries of the twenty-seven countries that were subjected to CRC state reporting in 2016 received a score on all seven
indicators. These countries are Haiti, Iran, Kenya, Latvia, Maldives, Nauru, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia
and South Africa. For the remaining countries at least one indicator was missing.

There were some new reporting standards in 2016 and the countries that did or could not meet them partly or fully for that year took a serious hit in the 5th domain of Enabling Environment.

Because the rankings work by a geometric mean rather than an arithmetic mean, the lowest score is highly-determinative of the aggregate score. Whether or nor reporting requirements were met is an objective standard, as is infant mortality rate or teen birth rate. As I said, the best case you could make here is that this skewing effect suggests the measures would better be taken on their own rather than ranked altogether through some aggregating means - or a better transformation for the aggregation than the geometric mean should be used.



It's really frustrating that your posts are consistently so ill-considered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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 like the Prospect on the Quay. My sister is in Heavitree now too, and my parents are in Exmouth, so we sometimes go there for Sunday Lunch. The Bowling Green changed hands recently, still feeling out the new landlord.

I'm not one for resorting to violence. Especially not on the basis of having ideological differences.

Neither am I, but I don't envisage a black hole, either.

I'm from the south east.

Hampshire, Wales, Sweden, Surrey. So It's unlikely we're related.

Exeter is a funny mix. Much more recent immigration than much of the rest of the country. The large number of Chinese students seem to be the most notable new group.

The Chinese students are transient, the Middle Eastern, Polish and Romanian immigrants have had a bigger impact on the city.

Tory candidate for Exeter just knocked on the door. He used to live on the same street. He always seems like the lights are on but no one is really home.

Well, at least he's local.

[Idaho]

Well, at least he's local.

Have you met him? I wouldn't put him in charge of a village jumble sale. He wasn't local when they gave him Cardiff West to have a stab at. Another tory barrister.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Have you met him? I wouldn't put him in charge of a village jumble sale. He wasn't local when they gave him Cardiff West to have a stab at. Another tory barrister.

Did you talk with the fellow for a bit or just tell him to scarper off?

[Idaho]

My daughter answered the door and called for me. As I walked towards the door and recognised his punchable lost puppy face I said "no, not a chance". He responded quizzically. "Never voting Tory" I elucidated and closed the door.

[Gilrandir]

Pray, independant, tell me what this actually means. What children's rights are being denied,

The right to be the EU citizens.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My daughter answered the door and called for me. As I walked towards the door and recognised his punchable lost puppy face I said "no, not a chance". He responded quizzically. "Never voting Tory" I elucidated and closed the door.

Pity. I think you might make or break him as a valid politico with one good conversation. After all, if he could not represent himself well with you during a civil discussion, how much could he be said to be "bringing to the table?"

[Pannonian]

Pity. I think you might make or break him as a valid politico with one good conversation. After all, if he could not represent himself well with you during a civil discussion, how much could he be said to be "bringing to the table?"

I suppose Idaho could check out his CV to see what qualifications he has for such a job. Of course, that course of action would disqualify the Labour leadership team, so maybe that's not something Idaho believes in.

[Beskar]

I suppose Idaho could check out his CV to see what qualifications he has for such a job. Of course, that course of action would disqualify the Labour leadership team, so maybe that's not something Idaho believes in.

Not really. To be fair, politicians CVs are a joke. They basically say 'went to boarding/private/grammar school's went to University (for PPE degree). Either became banker, lawyer or political~esque for a few years then go full time into politics. No real work experience.

If we wanted real leaders, we would have a lot more diversity from trained professionals with years of experience like Nurses, Police, Social work, etc.