Channel’s A-level disappointment, attack on Salman Rushdie and migrant crisis set Telegraph readers on fire

Channel’s A-level disappointment, attack on Salman Rushdie and migrant crisis set Telegraph readers on fire

Channel’s A-level disappointment, attack on Salman Rushdie and migrant crisis set Telegraph readers on fire

A warning that A-level pupils should prepare for disappointment, the shocking attack on author Sir Salman Rushdie in New York and the Royal Navy’s withdrawal of migrant patrols from the Channel rankled Telegraph readers this week.

Here are some of the most discussed talking points from Telegraph readers in our comments sections, Letters pages and the front page newsletter. You can join the discussion below.

Get involved in future raids by joining theTelegraph‌ ‌Community‌ ‌Facebook‌ ‌group.‌

A-level disappointment

Ahead of the announcement of A-Level results on Thursday, the higher education watchdog warned pupils they should be prepared for “disappointment” after exams boards were ordered to crack down on the skyrocketing inflation of grades.

Students from “more advantaged” areas faced additional adversity, as The Telegraph found they would be the least likely to receive university offers, in an effort to put disadvantaged students first. Readers sympathized with Allison Pearson’s argument about the unfair fight for college places, while others offered their advice to students who don’t achieve desired grades.

@Paul McDaid via Home Page Newsletter:

“As a teacher, the advice I always give is that there is often a place at another institution that is probably more suitable for that student. There is always another opportunity next year through a reapplication or retake, and that there are fantastic opportunities in the world”. work through learning schemes. They’re not ready to hear it, but it may be the catalyst they need to get them going.”

@Eric Blood:

“When my son applied to a Russell Group college, he was asked if either of his parents had gone to college. These are the facts of our case that will never have been factored into his denial, despite his 2A’s and 2Ace.

“His paternal grandfather was a miner who dropped out of school at 14. His maternal grandmother was a single mother. We each wanted our children to have a better life than they had, so he encouraged us to work hard at the (state) school, which we did.

“Thanks to inspiring teachers, my wife and I went to the best universities. We continued to work hard and made our parents proud that ‘we had done better than them’.

“So now we have ‘damaged’ our son’s acceptability in this world of artificial social engineering.”

@Ann de la Grange Sury, Bath via the newsletter on the main page:

“In 1983, my son received his A level results that prevented him from studying languages. We suggested that he had two options: retake or choose another career that would accept him.

“He chose to ignore the advice and got a job with a small insurance broker.

“He is now the proud owner of a very successful brokerage business in the city, with experience working all over the world.

“So not getting a university place probably did you a favor, as many employers prefer to train a young man who wants to but doesn’t have a degree.”

@Gregory Shenkman, London:

“Sir, the folly of Britain’s short-sighted drive for diversity and equality is well illustrated by the discrimination against hard-working, high-achieving middle-class students in favor of disadvantaged students and those from abroad.

“Excellence should be the sole criterion for university admission. By ignoring this and favoring foreign applicants in particular, our best universities betray their role: to attract Britain’s best to become the leaders of the world.” morning.

“Disadvantaged students should be judged on their exam performance, just like everyone else. If they are not, the exam system loses legitimacy.

“Selecting winners for social or economic reasons is a very bad idea. It doesn’t lead to socialist nirvana but, like all forms of affirmative action, it will simply lower the bar. In a competitive world, Britain’s elites must come from the best performers , not because of the whim of some left-wing professor”.

Consequences of the attack on Salman Rushdie

Readers joined columnists Tom Harris, Simon Heffer and Nick Timothy in condemning the shocking attack on author Sir Salman Rishdie onstage at an event in New York, with many calling it an attack on liberal society itself.

@SJXT:

“Free speech protections are currently inadequate. It is necessary to underline the principle that everyone is free to defend their own beliefs, but not to the point of trying to deny that same right to others whose opinions they do not agree with. That is what freedom of expression means. Not just for you, or your ‘side’, but for the other side as well.

“Where they seek to do so, whether through direct violence or intimidation, as with Salman Rushdie or JK Rowling, there must be serious consequences. Both for those directly involved and for those who tolerate or even encourage it.

@Martin Henry, Good Easter, Essex:

“Sir, Most people will think that the assassination attempt on Sir Salman Rushdie is the most heinous attack on free speech. But while it is a crime in the UK to deliberately incite racial hatred, universities and other institutions have for some time been intolerant of views that conflict with their own, and as a result many writers and performers have been ‘canceled’.

“I hope this horrific attack will focus our attention on the importance of greater tolerance for free speech.”

Crisis in the Channel

Following the Telegraph’s revelation that the Royal Navy plans to stop patrolling the Channel to combat illegal immigrants, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss responded by promising to keep the Royal Navy in charge of the role and using “every tool at its disposal.” my readiness” to combat small boats. . Readers shared Nigel Farage’s frustrations with Britain’s inability to control the situation, and questioned the scheme’s effectiveness as a deterrent.

@Peter Higgins, Kent:

“SIR: I am a former director of the UK Immigration Service. There have been claims that the Navy, by withdrawing its boats from migrant patrols of the Channel, will send the wrong message to smugglers, but I disagree. With a record number of 20,000 illegal immigrants already having arrived this year, many of whom were intercepted mid-Channel and then ‘taxied’ to Britain, what evidence is there to suggest that these additional warships have had an effect? dissuasive or preventive?

“The presence of more ships could actually have had the opposite effect: the migrants would have known there was a better chance of being picked up and having a safe journey to Britain, and they would have been well aware that they would not be forced to return.” “. to France.”

@John Nixon:

“The main role of the Royal Navy is to prevent seaborne invasions of the UK, not to act as a ferry service from beyond the middle of the Channel to the Kent coast. Unless and until they do the job they are paid for.” and they are expected to do there, to be without end.

“But the main strategy must be prevention by not allowing illegal entry in the first place, and the removal of any social support for those who enter the country without prior agreement.”


What are your thoughts on the biggest stories of the week? Join the conversation in the comments section below

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.