Other Doctors
I just wish they had gone for Andrew Lincoln
5 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Sep 2007
Well it all seems a bit of OU Bashing is in Vogue this year. I wonder if the writer who comments that any monkey can graduate with an OU degree has attempted to do so? Or if he has even got a degree? Or if he is one of those people who imagine that having a MCSE is somehow equivalent to an undergraduate degree?
Getting a degree isn't easy, at whatever age or university. If it were then everyone would have a degree, a situation that appears just as far off today as it ever has despite the current gov's attempts to get us all into the ivory towers. The OU degrees are just as difficult to achieve as other institutions, in fact until fairly recently a post-grad degree with the OU involved more work (18 months f/t) than a more traditional University (Durham 12 months f/t). As some may have recognised I used the past tense as this issue has since been addressed and now very few post-grad courses take less than 18 months, levelling the playing field somewhat.
The OU is like many other institutions, populated by individuals of differing levels of ability, some good, some less so. I can honestly say from experience that in six years with the OU, I have had issues with the abilities and knowledge of just two tutors and one member of the management team in Milton Keynes. Maybe I'm just an argumentative sod or maybe I'm just lucky but compared to some other universities and workplaces I have experienced, the OU is a shining beacon of best practice.
The course mentioned does appear to be worth giving a miss though.
I have worked as a contractor both in the UK and in Holland. This kind of debate doesn't occur over there because they have laws in place that specifically define who is and isn't a limited company and how they can arrange their finances.
Instead we get situations whereby a contractor will follow the letter of the law, as in the Arctic systems case, and still find HMRC on their case.
If the gov could be clear as to what we can and can’t do rather than hiding behind ambiguities then things would be a lot better all around….or would that tread on the toes of Barristers, MPs, footballers, etc. who use the limited company system to reduce their tax bill.
There is a place and a requirement for all types of power.
Currently Nuclear accounts for just south of 20% of the UK's energy and this figure is falling due to the stations coming to the end of their natural life and being decommissioned.
The other big source of power are coal fired plants, none of which have been built recently in the UK, the majority of which are coming to the end of their lifespan.
Bottom line is that there is significant shortfall coming to the UK energy market and by the mid 2020's we had better have a solution in place or the lights may very well go out.
Your typical nuclear power station can consistantly generate approx 2GW of power, do the sums, how many solar panels would be required to come anywhere near to that figure???
Don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing that we go off and build Nuclear power stations with no consideration to the effects, but we have a shortfall in power coming over the next twenty years based upon current levels of usage, never mind any increase because we all can't be bothered to power off our computers.
It can take up to five years just to build new power stations, what with all the public consultations and planning procedures, so something needs to start happening soon.
My own opinion is to reduce energy usage or maintain it at current levels through green initiatives, promote use of renewables such as solar, wind or tidal but accept that they cannot provide the base level of electricity we need and build a new generation of power stations having a (necessarily quick but proper) debate as to them being Gas, Coal or Nuclear.