Slim Pickings For Graduates

[Guest Skinty]

Yet you can get the equivalent of over £26k doing a Ph.D.

How??

I was on 8K and that rose to 10K PA by the end of it.

Some people manage to get funded by industry and work part-time on their PhD and they can earn more. And rightly so.

[Number79]

So, police officers are not there to protect the people? How so?

If someone commits murder, who should investigate? Is finding (and subsequently removing the murderers liberty) not protecting the people?

this link explains pretty well how the state works and the police. Well worth 10 mins or so of your life and opens they eyes more than many want to see.

other link where much is discussed and questions answered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYL4YlAqsPY

Edited July 5, 2009 by richyc

[Sinking Feeling]

How??

I was on 8K and that rose to 10K PA by the end of it.

Some people manage to get funded by industry and work part-time on their PhD and they can earn more. And rightly so.

I agree. I know people who have got the equivalent of £26k doing post doc work, i.e. 20k bursary, but I've not heard of anyone receiving this much for a PhD - usually more like around £10k-£14k bursary.

[Guest Skinty]

Sounds great - except people obviously don't want things requiring applied science et al in anything like the numbers we have trained for, or at the prices said trainees went and learned to be paid out at.

You're assuming that just because the number of students has risen that the number of trained scientists and engineers have also risen. Most university students have taken on easier subjects.

http://www.processengineering.co.uk/Articl...engineering.htm

The number of applicants for engineering courses has remained static at around 24,500 for the past decade, decreasing from 11% to just 8% of the total number of university entrants.

[Cityfool]

Hello all,

Long time no speak and all that. Nice to see the sanity quotient is keeping nice and low.

A few things:

1. You cannot learn EVERYTHING on the job. A lot of things, sure but not everything not without formal teaching. Formal teaching can take place along side work but it still has to take place. You don't just "pick up" quantum physics by watching Fred do it a few times.

2. We do have too many graduates in crap subjects. That much is apparent. The answer is fewer kids going in to uni. The way to achieve this is not however to scrap state funding for university as the delightfully ladder pulling chap called something like Cell would have us do. The open university is not the same frigging thing as an Oxford degree and access to the latter should be through merit not through accident of birth.

3. That people when posting on the internet probably in a hurry (who knows maybe the have a job to do) use "quite" and "quiet" or "there" and "their" incorrectly is NOT a indicator that the country is doing to the dogs. It is a sign that some people have slighly ropey grammar skills and busy lives. Largely the world will fail to end as a result.

4. We are going through one of the worst recessions in living memory. It is going to get worse before it gets better. Smug feckwits claiming that if graduates can't get jobs it is because of their "apathy" or because there is something wrong with them do no service to anyone (and yes I am graduate with a well paid job, thanks for asking). I am just (I hope) capable of some empathy.

5. Last, but by no means least just because you have lived your life a certain way doesn't mean everyone else who lives it differently is wrong. All of you would do well to remember this.

Here endeth the lesson, please feel free to shout me down as a troll. With a little luck those of you who refrain from wearing the tin foil hats might take some of it on board. To the rest of you, say hello to the aliens for me next time they abduct you.

As I may have mentioned before this site performed a great service in highlighting the coming disaster some years before it struck. It could do more to point out the folly of some of the policy responses now. If only the sanity levels could be kept a little higher then it could have a real voice.

Anyway as a man with a 1st class degree from Oxford (but lacking in the vice of taking himself too seriously) once said.

C U L8tr M8s

[Injin]

Hello all,

Long time no speak and all that. Nice to see the sanity quotient is keeping nice and low.

A few things:

1. You cannot learn EVERYTHING on the job. A lot of things, sure but not everything not without formal teaching. Formal teaching can take place along side work but it still has to take place. You don't just "pick up" quantum physics by watching Fred do it a few times.

2. We do have too many graduates in crap subjects. That much is apparent. The answer is fewer kids going in to uni. The way to achieve this is not however to scrap state funding for university as the delightfully ladder pulling chap called something like Cell would have us do. The open university is not the same frigging thing as an Oxford degree and access to the latter should be through merit not through accident of birth.

3. That people when posting on the internet probably in a hurry (who knows maybe the have a job to do) use "quite" and "quiet" or "there" and "their" incorrectly is NOT a indicator that the country is doing to the dogs. It is a sign that some people have slighly ropey grammar skills and busy lives. Largely the world will fail to end as a result.

4. We are going through one of the worst recessions in living memory. It is going to get worse before it gets better. Smug feckwits claiming that if graduates can't get jobs it is because of their "apathy" or because there is something wrong with them do no service to anyone (and yes I am graduate with a well paid job, thanks for asking). I am just (I hope) capable of some empathy.

5. Last, but by no means least just because you have lived your life a certain way doesn't mean everyone else who lives it differently is wrong. All of you would do well to remember this.

Here endeth the lesson, please feel free to shout me down as a troll. With a little luck those of you who refrain from wearing the tin foil hats might take some of it on board. To the rest of you, say hello to the aliens for me next time they abduct you.

As I may have mentioned before this site performed a great service in highlighting the coming disaster some years before it struck. It could do more to point out the folly of some of the policy responses now. If only the sanity levels could be kept a little higher then it could have a real voice.

Anyway as a man with a 1st class degree from Oxford (but lacking in the vice of taking himself too seriously) once said.

C U L8tr M8s

Nice post.

[Tomlad]

a police man and a police officer are two very different things.

A murderer is arrested by a policeman for breaking the law. He is tried under common law in a court of the land and punished accordingly.

A speeding motorist is dealt with by a police officer upholding the statutes of the state, can only face a state court and is often fined. Police officers generate revenue.

The uk is a country that has common law which must be abided by the men and women, the laws of right and wrong.

The uk is also a company run under contract law whereby every person is expected to agree the terms and breech of contract brings fines and punishment.

Many police do not understand the true difference between statutes and law nor the difference between what they are doing. On the ground, the bloke in uniform is doing the job but in law and in fact things are very different.

I'm going to get to the point here. Appologies if it offends:

You are talking utter b*llocks. You are doing so in the hope that people will simply assume they are not clever enough to understand you and give up. This is a lot like what Injin has done in the past, and it lowers the tone of the whole forum.

Its the reason I often go months without posting here.

PS "police officer" is the politcally correct name for a police man or WPC. Simple as.

[Number79]

3. That people when posting on the internet probably in a hurry (who knows maybe the have a job to do) use "quite" and "quiet" or "there" and "their" incorrectly is NOT a indicator that the country is doing to the dogs. It is a sign that some people have slighly ropey grammar skills and busy lives. Largely the world will fail to end as a result.

subtle and funny or evidence of a busy life?

to the point though.

[Number79]

I'm going to get to the point here. Appologies if it offends:

You are talking utter b*llocks. You are doing so in the hope that people will simply assume they are not clever enough to understand you and give up. This is a lot like what Injin has done in the past, and it lowers the tone of the whole forum.

Its the reason I often go months without posting here.

PS "police officer" is the politcally correct name for a police man or WPC. Simple as.

It doesn't offend because it looks a lot like I am talking boll0x. I have neither the memory, intelligence nor elloquence of the likes of injin but it doesn't make me wrong.

What I said is true and I don't want people to give up just look for themselves.

Officer is pollitically correct but it is also a term in legalese or contractual law.

Take a look at the link and if you can still say that I am talking bol0x then I will never mention it again.

This is a normal guy that is able to explain it in a way that the majority can understand, myself included, which is why it is the best starting point imho.

[frozen_out]

How??

I was on 8K and that rose to 10K PA by the end of it.

Some people manage to get funded by industry and work part-time on their PhD and they can earn more. And rightly so.

How long ago was that? About '97? I would guess

EngD students get about 20k tax free. In fact the EngD stipend is so generous many have trouble maintaining their level of income when it's time to get a job.

So, direct question. Would you rather the police were disbanded or kept?

Like I already pointed out, we're starting from a situation where the machinations of state and the lifestyle that entails, the cage that has been built for us, makes them necessary in some ways. But that is not to say they're essential.

When was the last time a policeman actually did anything for you? When was the last time someone called the police about a stolen bike and they made an effort to investigate and recover it? Are they winning 'the war on drugs', 'the war on knifecrime', 'the war on gangs'. Are they stopping people getting murdered or burgled? Doesn't look like it from where I'm standing. Value for money is almost non-existent.

Many police do not understand the true difference between statutes and law nor the difference between what they are doing. On the ground, the bloke in uniform is doing the job but in law and in fact things are very different.

You know what - I'm not even sure lawyers do. On another forum I visit there's a London Barrister. I asked him what he thought about the John Harris stuff, he said it was rubbish, when ever did you hear of 'person' not meaning 'man' or 'woman'. So I showed him the definition in Black's Law dictionary and told him there was his answer.

I then asked him, if it was rubbish what was the legal basis for the law itself? How can a council charge you for leaving a wheelie bin open without a contract? He never replied.

[Cityfool]

subtle and funny or evidence of a busy life?

to the point though.

heh - no merely (further) evidence of my crap grammar skills. In my defence I am at work!

[Number79]

You know what - I'm not even sure lawyers do. On another forum I visit there's a London Barrister. I asked him what he thought about the John Harris stuff, he said it was rubbish, when ever did you hear of 'person' not meaning 'man' or 'woman'. So I showed him the definition in Black's Law dictionary and told him there was his answer.

I then asked him, if it was rubbish what was the legal basis for the law itself? How can a council charge you for leaving a wheelie bin open without a contract? He never replied.

It is a travesty that the facts are hidden and so few have even a clue let alone an understanding. Maybe this is truly a case when ignorance is bliss, knowing what I do now has got me into a few disagreements and constantly has my blood boiling. I think it was easier when I thought that everything was law and things were black and white, still those days are gone now.

[Cityfool]

It is a travesty that the facts are hidden and so few have even a clue let alone an understanding. Maybe this is truly a case when ignorance is bliss, knowing what I do now has got me into a few disagreements and constantly has my blood boiling. I think it was easier when I thought that everything was law and things were black and white, still those days are gone now.

The law of the UK is not based on contract. It is based on the notion of a supreme parliament which can legislate as it sees fit (including for example delegating authority to a local council). Such is the nature of our unwritten constitution. The theory of legitimacy for legal systems is a branch of learning all in itself. It has precious little to do with whether or not you have to pay your fines.

If you genuinely want to learn more then start with H.L.A Hart's the Concept of Law and take it from there. Its pretty dry academic stuff for the most part though.

[Cityfool]

It is a travesty that the facts are hidden and so few have even a clue let alone an understanding. Maybe this is truly a case when ignorance is bliss, knowing what I do now has got me into a few disagreements and constantly has my blood boiling. I think it was easier when I thought that everything was law and things were black and white, still those days are gone now.

As for what lawyers do all day. Well in my case mainly post sh1te on internet fora.

[Tomlad]

It doesn't offend because it looks a lot like I am talking boll0x. I have neither the memory, intelligence nor elloquence of the likes of injin but it doesn't make me wrong.

What I said is true and I don't want people to give up just look for themselves.

Officer is pollitically correct but it is also a term in legalese or contractual law.

Take a look at the link and if you can still say that I am talking bol0x then I will never mention it again.

This is a normal guy that is able to explain it in a way that the majority can understand, myself included, which is why it is the best starting point imho.

A person commits a murder. They are arrested by a police officer This is fact.

I've had a brief look at your video. It's propaganda no different to that put out by political parties.

[Number79]

The law of the UK is not based on contract. It is based on the notion of a supreme parliament which can legislate as it sees fit (including for example delegating authority to a local council). Such is the nature of our unwritten constitution. The theory of legitimacy for legal systems is a branch of learning all in itself. It has precious little to do with whether or not you have to pay your fines.

If you genuinely want to learn more then start with H.L.A Hart's the Concept of Law and take it from there. Its pretty dry academic stuff for the most part though.

I have delved a little deeper but as you say it is very dry and I have other more pressing things to learn about.

What is your opinion the explanations that john harris gives?

[Number79]

A person commits a murder. They are arrested by a police officer This is fact.

I've had a brief look at your video. It's propaganda no different to that put out by political parties.

it isn't, there are 5 parts to it which explain a great deal. It is genuinely worth the time.

[Number79]

As for what lawyers do all day. Well in my case mainly post sh1te on internet fora.

I am in work aswell. As for what electrical engineers do these days, snap.

[Cityfool]

I have delved a little deeper but as you say it is very dry and I have other more pressing things to learn about.

What is your opinion the explanations that john harris gives?

Can't access youtube from work and am not aware of John Harris but it sounds like he is talking cr*p to me. The difference between statute law and common law is largely an academic one. A policeman acts in no different capacity when he arrests someone for murder (a common law offence) than when he arrests someone for theft (goverrned by statute).

[Number79]

it isn't, there are 5 parts to it which explain a great deal. It is genuinely worth the time.

part two deals specifically with the police

[Injin]

Can't access youtube from work and am not aware of John Harris but it sounds like he is talking cr*p to me. The difference between statute law and common law is largely an academic one. A policeman acts in no different capacity when he arrests someone for murder (a common law offence) than when he arrests someone for theft (goverrned by statute).

The difference arises when it comes to defending yourself.

One is based on evidence, the other opinion - generalyl they rely on you not knowing the difference to make thei rcase.

Assume your own innocence, ask questions.

[Once in a lifetime]

You can learn everything on the job.

Education teaches a man how to spell experience.

[Injin]

Education teaches a man how to spell experience.

It brainwashes him into thinking there is only one way to spell.

[Number79]

Can't access youtube from work and am not aware of John Harris but it sounds like he is talking cr*p to me. The difference between statute law and common law is largely an academic one. A policeman acts in no different capacity when he arrests someone for murder (a common law offence) than when he arrests someone for theft (goverrned by statute).

The crap is all mine due to a poor memory. He explains how the uk is run as a corporation and about corporate law. He explains the difference between lawful and legal.

He explains how a police man has a duty under common law to protect and to uphold common law. He also explains that a police officer is a corporation employee to collect revenue and enforce statutes.

He explains how a person is a legal fiction that is created when a birth is registered. The word person is defined as fiction, as a legal personality in blacks law ed three.

When a child is born the parents submit a birth certificate registration form. For any ltd company or corporation there is always a cert of registration to create its legal personality. Your fictional person is known by the title Mr/Mrs/Miss etc etc.

When you register you are handing over legal title of what you are registering to acknowledge or transfering the authority to another.

When you receive a birth cert you only get a copy, the state keep the original. On the cert the name of the person being created has to be in capitalised surnames as are the parents because another fiction is required to create a person so the parent becomes the informant. At the bottom of the birth cert is a declaration (common law) from a man or woman to prove that they were present to present the person required to create the new persons legal personality.

The certificate is then registered with the general register office - a corporation.

Once registered and having a person within the corporation that person is then subject to the statutes of the state. Without the creation of the legal fictional person the man or woman could not be subject to statutes only common law.

I can't explain it properly but would be interested to know your views when you get time to watch it.

Edited July 5, 2009 by richyc

[frozen_out]

The law of the UK is not based on contract. It is based on the notion of a supreme parliament which can legislate as it sees fit (including for example delegating authority to a local council). Such is the nature of our unwritten constitution. The theory of legitimacy for legal systems is a branch of learning all in itself. It has precious little to do with whether or not you have to pay your fines.

If you genuinely want to learn more then start with H.L.A Hart's the Concept of Law and take it from there. Its pretty dry academic stuff for the most part though.

So in a nutshell - You're born, you have to submit to the law as parliament sees fit and that's it. All ideas of being born free in any way are just that - ideas. That doesn't sound quite right to me. Some organisation gets to tell me what to do simply because I happened to be born in part of a geographical area which they control by force. Nice. Well at least you're honest about it.

Two other words in your post that are of interest to me are 'theory' and 'concept'. It seems to me that is all the so-called law is, well anything beyond common law at least. They just make stuff up as they go along. How on earth can you have anything other than simply a theory of why I have been born under the authority of another, when reality says each person is born free and sovereign? Beholden to no one.

You see, from your academic perspective the 'theory' of law may have precious little to do with whether or not you have to pay your fines. In my everyday practical experience of the law though, it has everything to do with it. The theory is just fancy words and concepts used in a vain attempt to justify stealing food from my mouth.