Teachers not wanting to go to work

Status
Not open for further replies.
Will they not still be working.
My 8 year old was off the other week as were her class . Their teacher was still on the other side of his PC teaching his class via Zoom

same here, both my kids have been home since before Christmas break, I think from about 13th Dec.
Kids spread it. the schools could not stay open if they wanted to, as too many staff had tested positive.
Keeping schools open is pretty silly really, soon people will realise it is as silly as sending people from hospitals to care homes without a test.

To stop this virus we need to vaccinate, and also stop the spread - because as we know, a lot of people will refuse to be vaccinated.

Children are super spreaders - they show little to no symptoms in most cases, so are the perfect vessel for the virus to spread.

If the government closed all schools and then vaccinated everybody, we'd all be able to go on our holidays in the summer and enjoy pints in the pub, concerts, festivals, curry nights etc.

But they will dilly dally for another 10 months and **** up our entire year.
 
Can we avoid rash assumptions?
You say I’m making rash assumption that children are super spreaders? You’ve changed your tune. FFS at least be consistent with your views.

As said previously, kids are super spreaders in other flu epidemics. Why wouldn't it be true for Coronavirus?


A106C3A6-EFA5-418B-A580-F78624F2CB36.jpeg
 
Last edited:
You say I’m making rash assumption that children are super spreaders? You’ve changed your tune. FFS at least be consistent with your views.
View attachment 217112
You've rather disingenuously cropped my quote to make it look like I have been hypocritical.
If you had included the whole quote, it would have been obvious that I was not making rash assumptions, merely asked a pertinent question, and not guilty of your alleged implication. I specifically noted that there was no assumption:

As said, I don't dispute your figures. But you ought to have cited your sources, and properly labelled your pie chart. It still takes the criteria to give the lowest numbers of deaths, i.e. deaths where Coronavirus has tested positive.
The economy may be the engine that generates the 'steam'. But experimenting with schools is not the way to go.
And it is an experiment because there is no science to justify the decision.
As said previously, kids are super spreaders in other flu epidemics. Why wouldn't it be true for Coronavirus?
That's a rhetorical question, obviously, because the jury is still out.

Whereas you made an assumption without justification, implied or overt:
I don’t blame them. I won’t even be considering going back to work until it’s calmed down or I’m fully jabbed up. Kids are the super spreaders of this virus and the kids I teach often have no parental supervision so are the type that are out all night mixing with all sorts. I can’t even teach from the comparative safety of the front of a class room - I’m under bonnets and under cars with students in close proximity which is too close for comfort in my mind which is the same for most vocational training. If there’s no demand for my services when/if I return, so be it, I’ll consider retirement. Money won’t help if you cop the virus so I’d be prepared to go without but Rishi is being kind to me. ;)
 
Last edited:
You've rather disingenuously cropped my quote to make it look like I have been hypocritical.
If you had included the whole quote, it would have been obvious that I was not making rash assumptions, merely asked a pertinent question, and not guilty of your alleged implication. I specifically noted that there was no assumption:



Whereas you made an assumption without justification, implied or overt:


Disingenuously
Don't worry Mottie
Its just a new word the Left are chucking out there. . They must be bored with calling people liers.

I got both barrels from Fanny the other day; he told me I was Disingenuous lier...
 
Disingenuously
Don't worry Mottie
Its just a new word the Left are chucking out there. . They must be bored with calling people liers.

I got both barrels from Fanny the other day; he told me I was Disingenuous lier...
It is similar, but not the same.
It can range from just insincerity to outright duplicity. Were you an insincere liar, or a duplicitous one?
 
Oh yes...use of the word Gypo...Case closed..thank fuk you are not the judge..Serious case of confirmation bias you have Razzler..

When I accused you of racism it was because of your persistent use of that word, which is undoubtedly pejorative. I presented the evidence to prove to you that it was considered pejorative, yet you persisted in using it. It's not based on my judgement but on multiple eminent publications and organisations.
You could check for yourself if you are unsure, or refuse to accept my evidence.


It is reserved for those who rock up where they fancy, steal from sheds, vans, lock-ups, garages, houses......., drive untaxed vehicles, cause distress and nuisance for those living nearby, fleece the vulnerable with unnecessary and / or overpriced work, leave rubbish and excrement behind, then pizz off to do the same at the next land "lucky enough" the experience their quaint ways. All with impunity.
It is meant to be derogatory, and is deservedly so.

(BTW, seeing as you like quoting definitions from Google, I'll point out that it is fine to be "pejorative" (y))

upload_2021-1-4_18-32-49.png
 
Fair enough but stop their pay.

Supermarket staff are still working dealing with hundreds of customers in a typical day and thousands going through stores ...... If teachers want to go on strike fine but stop their pay.

So what have you got to say for yourself now.

Early contennder for 2021 worst post of the year. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::mrgreen:
 
It is reserved for those who rock up where they fancy, steal from sheds, vans, lock-ups, garages, houses......., drive untaxed vehicles, cause distress and nuisance for those living nearby, fleece the vulnerable with unnecessary and / or overpriced work, leave rubbish and excrement behind, then pizz off to do the same at the next land "lucky enough" the experience their quaint ways. All with impunity.
It is meant to be derogatory, and is deservedly so.

(BTW, seeing as you like quoting definitions from Google, I'll point out that it is fine to be "pejorative" (y))

View attachment 217184
"Gypsy." The term GYPO is widely used as an abbreviation of the word "Gypsy." It was originally used as a derogatory term to refer to someone from the traveling community (e.g., Romani travelers, Irish travelers, gypsies), but is now more widely used as a common insult throughout the English-speaking world, .
https://www.cyberdefinitions.com/de...m GYPO,throughout the English-speaking world,

It is not fine to be pejorative if that attitude unfairly describes a whole culture based on the actions or behaviour of a few individuals that may or may not belong to that group. We've already seen, from others posts, that that type of behaviour is not the sole preserve of any one cultural group. Therefore it is racially offensive to suggest that it is.
Or alternatively, find an eminent reference for your opinion that the word is not offensive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top