To think that Owen Jones is a fraud.

[soul2000]

I watched the R.T.S Lecture he gave last night on representation of the Working Class on Television, i have never heard such opinionated rubbish.
There are three questions i would like to act Owen Jones

1. Despite having an Oxford Education why do you deliberately mispronounce

certain words, in a kind of "STOCKNEY" accent.

1. Which Comprehensive did he attend , anybody who knows Stockport knows there is a huge gap between Poynton/Bramhall and Brinnington.

3. What class does he think he is with is Oxford education and two University lecturer parents.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed

Yes, she did say the first part (and in a lot of cases she does have a point), but I didn't notice anything about paying people more than they are worth.

She doesn't have a point. A business is not a failure if its owner can't take a salary. I have done without a salary from my business sometimes, in order to keep the business going. Some months are lean. Others aren't.

She was advocating a 'living' wage which suggests that all people, regardless of their skills, are 'worth' at least a certain amount.

I would love to put the OP's posts through Turnitin... I get funny feeling it would explain why her ability to spell and use appropriate grammar is excellent in some posts and not in others.

The change in sentence structure, style, tone, language etc is blatant.

The biggest no-no of all in academic study is passing the work of others off as your own OP, and it's so easy to spot, particularly when the person doing it struggles with literacy skills, then submits a piece of work with no errors.

Some serious cut and pasting going on.

Coola. What work have i cheated with. If you understand Dyspraxia you will know it can be inconsistent , i would love some people with Dyspraxia to explain to you how that happens. Thats why when you send Academic work you have to look at what you have read (Read it again) then rewrite it. Obviously you have no understanding of Dyspraxia. With Dyspraxia sometimes you can find it hard to put your thoughts on paper hence spelling and grammar mistakes , check up on the facts before you criticise . If in the future Turnitin deems my work is fake when it is original , a degree is not worth having is it.

Other problems with Dyspraxia are that you can be verbal excellent but find expression and description very difficult .

These are part of the reasons that when my mum took me for extra help when i was 14 , the tutors thought i was just lazy. The tutors could not understand how someone who was verbally excellent, could not write the same way. This of course is down to ignorance of Dyspraxia and the symptoms , the ignorance still exists today . I know of other bright kids from 30 years ago that were bright , but because they struggled with handwriting and descriptive work were labelled dummies. If you are interested i suggest you look on two websites : strategies for Dyspraxia in Secondary schools, this site shows Teachers how they can spot it , and gives strategies for teachers and students in coping with it. The other website is : Dyspraxic adults, if you read some of the introductions of people on the site, you will see some of them have high quality degrees. You will also read that despite having achieved high academic achievement, they can struggle with grammar and punctuation in everyday life.

Dyspraxia does not make you write in a completely different style from one minute to the next. It also does not mean that sometimes you have good literacy skills and sometimes you have poor literacy skills. I have a child with dyspraxia, so I do know about this issue.

And I know that dyspraxic people are often highly intelligent; the point being made to you was that the literacy standards and quality of argument in your posts varies wildly from one to the next. Which makes it look like you have cut and pasted bits of information from elsewhere.

Forgive me flatpackhamster but I would rather put my faith in someone who could speak five languages, who spent their entire life studying both in formal education and as a autodidact, spending 8hrs a day in the British Library than some random off the internet.

Claig, no value is added to a commodity in the exchange process. To do so would mean that either buyers or sellers were privileged. If sellers were privileged to "add" value at any rate they deem fit, when they too have to buy/reinvest in the circulation M-C-M they would be disadvantaged as a buyer.

If value could be added in the exchange process and that this was the basis on which surplus value came into existence, then you end up with: every time a commodity is sold, even if no extra labour is put into it but it exchanges for more with every hand it passes through, we would end up with spiralling inflation and no ability to buy commodities. Indeed a biro pen would end up being £30 instead of 30p

Mini, I don't understand it. Can you break it down more simply and what is M-C-M?

I have not cut and pasted any articles or information. Actually i am quite pleased that you think sometimes what i say is quite good ( Maybe its not quite as bad as some posts) . Eofa. If you have a child with Dyspraxia you will know they can vary massively from day to day in many tasks. If you dont believe me, you need to go on to the websites i have mentioned and seek testimony from people who suffer from Dyspraxia.

This thread has moved on from the original post, i accept the original post was very silly. I also accept that i have no evidence about my assertion that Owen Jones is a fraud.

However i do not need to cut and paste in any academic study i have done or will do should i continue.

The Degree i am doing is not Life or Death for me, its for enjoyment therefore if i pass or fail ( So what) i have no reason to cheat or plagiarize other people's work.

soul2000, don't worry about criticism. You deserve to pass because you think outside the box and question things and people. That takes originality and not following the herd.

Owen Jones is alright. Bit of a plonker, yes, but fraud, I don't think so. Establishment, absolutely!

Naive - without a doubt!
But he is the best that the socialists have got.

thank you Claig. it will take a few years though...

The longer the better, because then the enjoyment is prolonged.

"I would rather put my faith in someone who could speak five languages, who spent their entire life studying both in formal education and as a autodidact, spending 8hrs a day in the British Library"

Yes, Nick Clegg may have done all that, but has he got any common sense at the end of it? Establishment? - Absolutely!

"A mastery of foreign languages is regarded by most of us with admiration – and suspicion. Clegg is more connected to European blood lines than the Royal Family, and can converse in most countries. He famously has five languages , six if you count his much-admired body language"

www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/sarah-sands/sarah-sands-clever-clegg-minds-his-languages--all-six-of-them-1999030.html

Sorry, dyspraxia does NOT mean you have dramatically different literacy standards at half past 10 than you did at 10. If you say you haven't cut and pasted, then we'll have to take your word for it.

You are being unreasonable.

MissMiniTheMinx

Forgive me flatpackhamster but I would rather put my faith in someone who could speak five languages, who spent their entire life studying both in formal education and as a autodidact, spending 8hrs a day in the British Library than some random off the internet.

Of course, because they clearly were experts on running a business with all that experience in...oooh, wait.

Did it occur to you that someone who spent all that time doing stuff that wasn't running a business might not be best placed to opine on it?

But that's just your worldview, isn't it. You place no value in actual experience, because what matters is the theory. Which is why you cling to socialism like a comfort blanket, because despite all the experience showing it doesn't work (oh look, Venezuela's doing well now) you still grip the thesis tightly and say 'Look, the paperwork says everything's fine!'.

Which/what article have i cut and pasted from. If you think the post on page 7 are not my words then you are mistaken, other than that post i can't understand what makes you think i have used other people's words.

The post on page 7 is about 300 words of the 1000 words i have to write about life chances/social mobility and poverty of aspiration in their educations that kids from socially disadvantaged backgrounds suffer from. in the other 700 words or so i will go on to state that i believe a lot of these problems are down to environment, lack of self belief , positive influences and due to the fact that no one they know has ever been to University. I will also go on to state that many of these families have not shared any of the growth or benefited from the economic growth the U.K has witnessed in the last 30 years. In terms of comparative measures it is evident that these families have gone backwards over the last 30 years. However if i had posted something like, Ian Duncan Smith has bad breath , i would have got over 200 people arguing me despite there being no evidence that he has bad breath.

before i am reported . In the educations of socially deprived children.

Please excuse me for not reading the whole thread but the OP reminded me of this quote from Russell Brand

"When I was poor and complained about inequality people said I was bitter, Now I am rich they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want inequality on the agenda...."

flatpackhamster I have run two businesses and found the whole experience quite boring (but that's me) and I won't have been the only person to have run a business, that is not deluded into thinking that profit is created in the act of exchange. There are plenty of business people that know perfectly well where profit comes from. Knowing it is not the same as saying it is exploitative but it is, a recognition of the facts.

Do I cling to theory? no I don't, I even find much to disagree with, both in Marx's analysis and other arguments on the left, such as the obsessional rantings about welfare and benefits.

The welfare state can no longer be afforded (we are told) and everything must be privatised (so the story goes) and yet, human labour power must continue to be made available, must continue to be educated and skilled and it must reproduce itself daily and generationally, if the capitalist is to remain in the game. A good capitalist maximises his profits by paying the workers a percentage only of the value they create and then he turns to his accountant and says "find a loophole" by minimising his tax and wages he is able to produce profits. But, if he pays low wages but still requires skilled living labour, someone other than the worker must pay for the training/education because the workers wages cannot cover this. But the state cannot afford to pay for this because the capitalist seeks to pay little in tax...and on it goes...why is the state paying for welfare and education, health, roads and infrastructure when the biggest beneficiaries of this largesse are capitalists?

Claig m-c-m is the circuit of exchange that produces capital from money, it only remains capital when that money is in motion, ie being thrown back into the same circulation. On each turn it removes money from circulation and the pot of capital grows. If I remove the money from that circulation to buy a handbag and a new car, it is money and no longer capital. On the other hand the circuit c-m-c comes to an end, in much the same way as when a peasant sells his commodity for money and buys another commodity with the money, the circuit ceases and in order to have either another commodity (of choice) or acquire money the peasant must start a new circuit.

'why is the state paying for welfare and education, health, roads and infrastructure when the biggest beneficiaries of this largesse are capitalists?'

No, I think the biggest beneficiary is the people not the relatively few capitalists. The National Health Service benefits the people not the capitalist.

Yes, I'm having trouble understanding it.

Can you give an example of what this means?

"no value is added to a commodity in the exchange process. To do so would mean that either buyers or sellers were privileged. If sellers were privileged to "add" value at any rate they deem fit, when they too have to buy/reinvest in the circulation M-C-M they would be disadvantaged as a buyer."

Oh I can't give a fair comment as I have a crush on him!! and yes, I know