On 21/08/2026 11:18 PM, JNugent wrote:
It wasn't misplaced. It was unnecessary and erroeous.
Er... erroneous!
On 2026-08-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4252357755.ee304725@uninhabited.net...
Well did he have teh apostrophe or didn't he? I'm afraid I can't
really make any sense of your answer.
Well quite obviously there was a redundant apostrophe after teachers'
in the title.
Because otherwise, GB, or Ribbens having been Googling away like mad to
prove me wrong, would have been jumping up and down congratulating
themselves and posting the actual title on here
I'm sorry, but you're really going to have to do better than managing
to go eleven seconds without putting your foot in your mouth in order
to earn my approval. But it's touching that you want it so much.
In message <ner9vvFm7kgU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
[rCa]
As critics of the application of critical race theory, to the sociologyWould not the least that can be expected to have been done, once all the
of education might well argue, that it's all just a load of repetitive
verbiage; based on a very limited number of assumptions and numerous
nebulous concepts, in any case.
Given which, the very least scholars of the topic can reasonably be
expected to
do in order to produce *original work*, is to rearrange all this verbiage >>> in some novel way; *using their own words*. Not simply copy somebody else. >>
othersrCO works had been mentioned, is to discuss the various issues on the >> basis of the information presented, finally draw conclusions, extrapolate
those, point up areas yet to be researched, and make recommendations for
further work?
Was that in fact done?
After all, Arday was taken on by Cambridge because they said he was the
finest researcher in the world, but it isnrCOt clear exactly what advanced by
his thesis.
HTF do you do research into sociology , a pseudo science if I ever saw
one. It was being mocked in the 80s
"An 'ology! He gets an 'ology and he says he's failed. You get an
'ology, you're a scientist!"
B
On 20:20 21 Aug 2026, Roger Hayter said:
On 21 Aug 2026 at 20:10:52 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn118h5qf.613.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-08-21, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 21/08/2026 18:31, billy bookcase wrote:
Oh contraire !
Oops!
I did like the bit where he was boasting about how he's read all
the material in great detail so as to know all about it, and then
immediately proceeded to get both Arday's and Cofnas' names wrong.
It could have been worse. For instance the title of Arday's thesis
An Exploration of Peer-Mentoring among Student Teachers' to Inform
Reflective Practice within the Context of Action Research.
After you've Googled that one, maybe it's straight back onto Amazon
to order an even bigger omelette pan.
bb
Was there really a misplaced apostrophe in his *title*? That's
definitely worse than the plagiarism.
While we're inspecting peccadillos, the link used by Liverpool John Moores University to Jason Arday's dissertation contains its own typo.
<https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4552/1/158222_Jason%20Arday_% 20Final%20PhD%20Thesis%20Vesrion%20Final%20Draft%20Oct%202015.pdf>
I noticed the misplaced apostrophe in the title (possibly due to a last minute
global edit?),
HTF do you do research into sociology , a pseudo science if I ever saw one. It
was being mocked in the 80s
On 22/08/2026 03:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"brian" <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:
HTF do you do research into sociology , a pseudo science if I ever saw one.
It
was being mocked in the 80s
Sociology is a critical discipline. It identifies problems in society. One >> such major topic has always been crime; how its defined why some people
are criminals etc etc.
Which of course will be mocked by those who insist that the only real
problem with crime, is that we don't lock criminals up for long enough;
Well, that is a standard economist's approach,
though the correct statement would be more like "We don't punish them enough".
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neu10cF4ru0U6@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"brian" <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:
HTF do you do research into sociology , a pseudo science if I ever saw one.
It
was being mocked in the 80s
Sociology is a critical discipline. It identifies problems in society. One >>> such major topic has always been crime; how its defined why some people
are criminals etc etc.
Which of course will be mocked by those who insist that the only real
problem with crime, is that we don't lock criminals up for long enough;
Well, that is a standard economist's approach,
Please describe the economic benefits to society, of spending
u1,000* a week locking somebody up in prison foe even longer
periods
though the correct statement would be more like "We don't punish them enough".
That's according to you.
You've already given what you claimed was the "economist's
view" namely to spend u1000 a week per prisoner for even
longer than we do now. Which is clearly a load of old
cobblers
So who else apart from yourself is advoicating more punishmnt.
Apart obviously from sado-masochist and the like ?
On 22/08/2026 05:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu10cF4ru0U6@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"brian" <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:Well, that is a standard economist's approach,
HTF do you do research into sociology , a pseudo science if I ever saw >>>>> one.
It
was being mocked in the 80s
Sociology is a critical discipline. It identifies problems in society. One >>>> such major topic has always been crime; how its defined why some people >>>> are criminals etc etc.
Which of course will be mocked by those who insist that the only real
problem with crime, is that we don't lock criminals up for long enough; >>>
Please describe the economic benefits to society, of spending
u1,000* a week locking somebody up in prison foe even longer
periods
though the correct statement would be more like "We don't punish them
enough".
That's according to you.
It was a mere semantic correction.
"...we don't lock criminals up for long enough..." is an over-simplification.
You've already given what you claimed was the "economist's
view" namely to spend u1000 a week per prisoner for even
longer than we do now. Which is clearly a load of old
cobblers
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
Averaging is the enemy of truth, which counts cost at the margin.
So who else apart from yourself is advoicating more punishmnt.
Apart obviously from sado-masochist and the like ?
I have not advocated anything (except that counting costs by simple averaging
does not reveal the truth).
I explained to you what the economic approach entails (in general).
On 22/08/2026 15:31, billy bookcase wrote:
"brian" <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IYH3c3Fp0SiqFwiX@b-howie.co.uk...
HTF do you do research into sociology , a pseudo science if I ever saw one. >>> It
was being mocked in the 80s
Sociology is a critical discipline.It identifies problems in society. One
such major topic has always been crime; how its defined why some people
are criminals etc etc.
Which of course will be mocked by those who insist that the only real
problem with crime, is that we don't lock criminals up for long enough;
Whereas the Home Office who have to keep hold of be purse strings,
employ sociologists to interview criminals; so as to try and find ways
of persuading them to stop whatever it is that they're doing
but in the cheapest way possible.
Taser 'em! It's the only language they understand. And it's cheap.
Does that make me a sociologist?
On 22/08/2026 15:31, billy bookcase wrote:
"brian" <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IYH3c3Fp0SiqFwiX@b-howie.co.uk...
HTF do you do research into sociology , a pseudo science if I ever saw one. It
was being mocked in the 80s
Sociology is a critical discipline.It identifies problems in society. One
such major topic has always been crime; how its defined why some people
are criminals etc etc.
Which of course will be mocked by those who insist that the only real
problem with crime, is that we don't lock criminals up for long enough;
Whereas the Home Office who have to keep hold of be purse strings,
employ sociologists to interview criminals; so as to try and find ways
of persuading them to stop whatever it is that they're doing
but in the cheapest way possible.
Taser 'em! It's the only language they understand. And it's cheap.
Does that make me a sociologist?
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 15:31, billy bookcase wrote:
"brian" <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IYH3c3Fp0SiqFwiX@b-howie.co.uk...
HTF do you do research into sociology , a pseudo science if I ever saw one. It
was being mocked in the 80s
Sociology is a critical discipline.It identifies problems in society. One >>> such major topic has always been crime; how its defined why some people
are criminals etc etc.
Which of course will be mocked by those who insist that the only real
problem with crime, is that we don't lock criminals up for long enough;
Whereas the Home Office who have to keep hold of be purse strings,
employ sociologists to interview criminals; so as to try and find ways
of persuading them to stop whatever it is that they're doing
but in the cheapest way possible.
Taser 'em! It's the only language they understand. And it's cheap.
Does that make me a sociologist?
It canrCOt do, you havenrCOt mentioned lived experiences or regaled your list of received micro-aggressions that are going to empower you when you
confront the aggressor.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 22/08/2026 05:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 22/08/2026 03:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"brian" <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:
HTF do you do research into sociology , a pseudo science if I ever saw >>>>>> one. It was being mocked in the 80s
Sociology is a critical discipline. It identifies problems in society. One
such major topic has always been crime; how its defined why some people >>>>> are criminals etc etc.
Which of course will be mocked by those who insist that the only real >>>>> problem with crime, is that we don't lock criminals up for long enough;
Well, that is a standard economist's approach,
Please describe the economic benefits to society, of spending
u1,000* a week locking somebody up in prison foe even longer
periods
though the correct statement would be more like "We don't punish them
enough".
That's according to you.
It was a mere semantic correction.
"...we don't lock criminals up for long enough..." is an over-simplification.
You've already given what you claimed was the "economist's
view" namely to spend u1000 a week per prisoner for even
longer than we do now. Which is clearly a load of old
cobblers
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
When was the last time any prison was empty in the UK ?
Averaging is the enemy of truth, which counts cost at the margin.
So who else apart from yourself is advoicating more punishmnt.
Apart obviously from sado-masochist and the like ?
I have not advocated anything (except that counting costs by simple averaging
does not reveal the truth).
What has that got to do with "punishment" ? Did the sado masochsim
reference hit a nerve or something ?
I explained to you what the economic approach entails (in general).
Indeed you did, According to you it "entails" spending u1000 a week
per prisner, locking people up for even longer periods.
And obviously the longer you lock people up for the less chance there
is of any empty cells, and unproductive overheads.
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which >>> need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing new prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private companies in doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each new prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That would be quite high.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing new prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private companies in doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each new prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That would be quite high.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8349426885.01c487b8@uninhabited.net...
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which >>>> need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
Which would apparently apply if the prisons are empty
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing new >> prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private companies in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each new >> prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That would be
quite high.
The statistic I quoted was for the cost of each prisoner applied in 2024
Mr Nugent doesn't do statistics unfiortunately
Which was presumably calculated by taking the annual total cost of the prison
service for 2024 and dividing it up by the number of prisoners being held
at any one time, averaged out over tne year.
And a similar figure will be simarly calculated for 2025.
The cost of *additional prisoners* is totally irrelevent
When what I was originjally describing were
quote:
"those who insist that the only real problem with crime, is that we don't lock
criminals up for long enough;
:unquote
IOW locking up existing prisoners for longer.
Not locking up additional prisoners.
Mr Nugent as his custom chose to deliberately ignore this, draw you in
to tne discussion, and waste everybody's time in the process.
On 23/08/2026 12:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing new >> prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private companies in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each new >> prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That would be
quite high.
Capital costs are overheads (or, in USA-speak, just the singular
"overhead"), whether the new prison is directly built, rented, PFId or anything else by way of acquisition.
Capital costs are overheads (that included staff salaries, though that
may, of coiurse, vary).
Running costs are distinct from capital costs and are not overheads.
"set out what it has learned from the failures of its decision
making"
On 23 Aug 2026 12:03:58 GMT
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
"set out what it has learned from the failures of its decision
making"
I imagine that will probably be the empty set.
.
I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished enough.
If you can only envisage adequate punishment in terms of jail time served, I hate to have to tell you this, but prison is for a minority of persons convicted.
On 23 Aug 2026 at 14:59:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 12:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing new
prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private companies in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each new >>> prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That would be
quite high.
Capital costs are overheads (or, in USA-speak, just the singular
"overhead"), whether the new prison is directly built, rented, PFId or
anything else by way of acquisition.
Capital costs are overheads (that included staff salaries, though that
may, of coiurse, vary).
Running costs are distinct from capital costs and are not overheads.
Fair enough but there are very major running costs of a prison, and the situation when you add a person to nearly full prison is totally different from having to open a new prison for the next 1000 inmates.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished enough.
"Punishment" is simply not a "concept" in economics.
If you can only envisage adequate punishment in terms of jail time served, I >> hate to have to tell you this, but prison is for a minority of persons
convicted.
Whether "punishment" is sufficiently "adequate" or not is simply "not"
a problem in economics.
It would be a problem in "Politics" and in "Ethics" a branch of
"Philosophy, with outcomes possibly measured by "Sociologists"
Or on the other hand you could simply execute "all" criminals,
possibly except those convicted of bribing prostitutes instead;
which is simply an extension of your own approach, and cut out all
this nonsense altogether.
On 23/08/2026 08:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished
enough.
"Punishment" is simply not a "concept" in economics.
Why not?
On 23/08/2026 03:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 14:59:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 12:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing new
prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private companies in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each new
prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That would be
quite high.
Capital costs are overheads (or, in USA-speak, just the singular
"overhead"), whether the new prison is directly built, rented, PFId or
anything else by way of acquisition.
Capital costs are overheads (that included staff salaries, though that
may, of coiurse, vary).
Running costs are distinct from capital costs and are not overheads.
Fair enough but there are very major running costs of a prison, and the
situation when you add a person to nearly full prison is totally different >> from having to open a new prison for the next 1000 inmates.
Indeed.
But no-one would be foolish enough to try to load the entire overhead
cost of a new-build prison onto the first prisoner (or the first few prisoners) housed there, for very obvious reasons.
And in the oppsite case, housing a marginal prisoner i na prison full
except for one upper bunk would not increase the unit's costs by BB's
-u1,000 a week.
Or on the other hand you could simply execute "all" criminals,It's a bit draconian, but I'm guessing that it would drastically reduce
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 23/08/2026 08:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished >>>> enough. ************************************************************************
"Punishment" is simply not a "concept" in economics.
Why not?
Because people sre normally "punished" for doing something "wrong".
The notions of "right" and "wrong", and to what degree they
should be "rewarded" or "punished" are soleley the preserve
of "Politics"; as informed by "Ethics".
While you are a nothing but a "Clown" and a "Bluffer"
But clearly not very successful at that; once things start
to get a bit "complicated".
Although nothing that a 20 post sub-thred can't remedy;
if you can manage to string it out that long.
On 23 Aug 2026 at 23:43:06 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 03:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 14:59:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 12:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101 >>>>>>
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing new
prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private companies in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each new
prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That would be
quite high.
Capital costs are overheads (or, in USA-speak, just the singular
"overhead"), whether the new prison is directly built, rented, PFId or >>>> anything else by way of acquisition.
Capital costs are overheads (that included staff salaries, though that >>>> may, of coiurse, vary).
Running costs are distinct from capital costs and are not overheads.
Fair enough but there are very major running costs of a prison, and the
situation when you add a person to nearly full prison is totally different >>> from having to open a new prison for the next 1000 inmates.
Indeed.
But no-one would be foolish enough to try to load the entire overhead
cost of a new-build prison onto the first prisoner (or the first few
prisoners) housed there, for very obvious reasons.
Of course not. But it would be reasonable to divide it between the first prison-full.
And in the oppsite case, housing a marginal prisoner i na prison full
except for one upper bunk would not increase the unit's costs by BB's
-u1,000 a week.
My point of course is that we are not in a position where we have a longstanding stable prison estate where the cost of the marginal prisoner is negligible.
On 24/08/2026 09:12 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...************************************************************************
On 23/08/2026 08:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
************************************************************************I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished >>>>> enough.
"Punishment" is simply not a "concept" in economics.
Why not?
Because people sre normally "punished" for doing something "wrong".
The context here (which you have obviously forgotten) was that of criminals being punished (if at all) and whether adequately or otherwise. It's still there, above (and now highlighted).
On 24/08/2026 09:12 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...************************************************************************
On 23/08/2026 08:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
************************************************************************I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished >>>>> enough.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 09:12 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 23/08/2026 08:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
************************************************************************ >>>>>> I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished >>>>>> enough.
************************************************************************
"Punishment" is simply not a "concept" in economics.
Why not?
Because people sre normally "punished" for doing something "wrong".
The context here (which you have obviously forgotten) was that of criminals >> being punished (if at all) and whether adequately or otherwise. It's still >> there, above (and now highlighted).
Which isn't a question which is decided by economists.
On 24/08/2026 02:39 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 09:12 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 23/08/2026 08:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
************************************************************************ >>>>>>> I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished >>>>>>> enough.
************************************************************************ >>>
"Punishment" is simply not a "concept" in economics.
Why not?
Because people sre normally "punished" for doing something "wrong".
The context here (which you have obviously forgotten) was that of criminals >>> being punished (if at all) and whether adequately or otherwise. It's still >>> there, above (and now highlighted).
Which isn't a question which is decided by economists.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Has someone argued that economists instead of magistrates and/or judges should
decide criminal trials?
Or has somebody pointed out that there is such a thing as an economic view on
the subject of penal policy?
On 23 Aug 2026 at 23:43:06 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 03:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 14:59:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 12:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, >>>>>>> which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101 >>>>>>
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing >>>>> new
prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private companies
in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each >>>>> new
prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That would
be
quite high.
Capital costs are overheads (or, in USA-speak, just the singular
"overhead"), whether the new prison is directly built, rented, PFId or >>>> anything else by way of acquisition.
Capital costs are overheads (that included staff salaries, though that >>>> may, of coiurse, vary).
Running costs are distinct from capital costs and are not overheads.
Fair enough but there are very major running costs of a prison, and the
situation when you add a person to nearly full prison is totally different >>> from having to open a new prison for the next 1000 inmates.
Indeed.
But no-one would be foolish enough to try to load the entire overhead
cost of a new-build prison onto the first prisoner (or the first few
prisoners) housed there, for very obvious reasons.
Of course not. But it would be reasonable to divide it between the first prison-full.
And in the oppsite case, housing a marginal prisoner i na prison full
except for one upper bunk would not increase the unit's costs by BB's
u1,000 a week.
On 23 Aug 2026 at 23:43:06 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 03:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 14:59:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 12:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, >>>>>>>> which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income,
*all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101 >>>>>>>
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing
at all !
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing >>>>>> new
prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private companies
in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each >>>>>> new
prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That would
be
quite high.
Capital costs are overheads (or, in USA-speak, just the singular
"overhead"), whether the new prison is directly built, rented, PFId or >>>>> anything else by way of acquisition.
Capital costs are overheads (that included staff salaries, though that >>>>> may, of coiurse, vary).
Running costs are distinct from capital costs and are not overheads.
Fair enough but there are very major running costs of a prison, and the >>>> situation when you add a person to nearly full prison is totally different >>>> from having to open a new prison for the next 1000 inmates.
Indeed.
But no-one would be foolish enough to try to load the entire overhead
cost of a new-build prison onto the first prisoner (or the first few
prisoners) housed there, for very obvious reasons.
Of course not. But it would be reasonable to divide it between the first
prison-full.
And in the oppsite case, housing a marginal prisoner i na prison full
except for one upper bunk would not increase the unit's costs by BB's
u1,000 a week.
More total nonsense.
There are no such things as "marginal prisoners".
Depending on sentencing policy, long term and short term, prisons
overall will want to maintain an element of *temporary *spare capacity
Which is already costed in. And then averaged out over the prison
population thus contributing to the u1000 a week cost
On induction a new prisoner may well be housed in that spare
capacity, until another prisoner is released.
*but he isn't going to stay there permanently*
Because if he did, then to maintain the same level of spare capacity
within the system, they would need to build another half cell and install another new bunk somewhere in the system.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nf3449Ftk4rU2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/08/2026 02:39 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 09:12 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 23/08/2026 08:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
************************************************************************ >>>>>>>> I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished >>>>>>>> enough.
************************************************************************ >>>>
"Punishment" is simply not a "concept" in economics.
Why not?
Because people sre normally "punished" for doing something "wrong".
The context here (which you have obviously forgotten) was that of criminals
being punished (if at all) and whether adequately or otherwise. It's still >>>> there, above (and now highlighted).
Which isn't a question which is decided by economists.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Has someone argued that economists instead of magistrates and/or judges should
decide criminal trials?
Economists don't have "a view" as you claim above *****in asteriscs*****
They calculate the cost implications of various sentencing policies,
one of which may be adopted, depending on Parliament's "view"
Or has somebody pointed out that there is such a thing as an economic view on
the subject of penal policy?
Well.if they have, they are simply as stupid as you are.
On 23/08/2026 20:34, billy bookcase wrote:
Or on the other hand you could simply execute "all" criminals,It's a bit draconian, but I'm guessing that it would drastically reduce
the incidence of double-parking or littering.
On 24/08/2026 07:17 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 23:43:06 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 03:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 14:59:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 23/08/2026 12:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:Fair enough but there are very major running costs of a prison, and the >>>>> situation when you add a person to nearly full prison is totally different
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, >>>>>>>>> which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income, >>>>>>>> *all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101 >>>>>>>>
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300
prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing >>>>>>>> at all !
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing
new
prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private >>>>>>> companies
in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each >>>>>>> new
prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That >>>>>>> would
be
quite high.
Capital costs are overheads (or, in USA-speak, just the singular
"overhead"), whether the new prison is directly built, rented, PFId or >>>>>> anything else by way of acquisition.
Capital costs are overheads (that included staff salaries, though that >>>>>> may, of coiurse, vary).
Running costs are distinct from capital costs and are not overheads. >>>>>
from having to open a new prison for the next 1000 inmates.
Indeed.
But no-one would be foolish enough to try to load the entire overhead
cost of a new-build prison onto the first prisoner (or the first few
prisoners) housed there, for very obvious reasons.
Of course not. But it would be reasonable to divide it between the first >>> prison-full.
And in the oppsite case, housing a marginal prisoner i na prison full
except for one upper bunk would not increase the unit's costs by BB's
u1,000 a week.
More total nonsense.
There are no such things as "marginal prisoners".
You... er... don't have a feel for English used in technical discourse, do you?
Are there any night classes starting in September round your way?
Depending on sentencing policy, long term and short term, prisons
overall will want to maintain an element of *temporary *spare capacity
Which is already costed in. And then averaged out over the prison
population thus contributing to the u1000 a week cost
On induction a new prisoner may well be housed in that spare
capacity, until another prisoner is released.
None of that negates the concept of the "marginal prisoner".
Your thinking that it does (or might) simply highlights your lack of grasp of English as used in technical description.
*but he isn't going to stay there permanently*
Because if he did, then to maintain the same level of spare capacity
within the system, they would need to build another half cell and install
another new bunk somewhere in the system.
Go on... try a few more sentences filled with random words.
On 24/08/2026 06:27 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf3449Ftk4rU2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/08/2026 02:39 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 09:12 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 23/08/2026 08:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
************************************************************************ >>>>>>>>> I said that the economist's view would that criminals are not punished
************************************************************************ >>>>>enough.
"Punishment" is simply not a "concept" in economics.
The context here (which you have obviously forgotten) was that ofWhy not?
Because people sre normally "punished" for doing something "wrong". >>>>>
criminals
being punished (if at all) and whether adequately or otherwise. It's still
there, above (and now highlighted).
Which isn't a question which is decided by economists.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Has someone argued that economists instead of magistrates and/or judges >>> should
decide criminal trials?
Economists don't have "a view" as you claim above *****in asteriscs*****
I didn't say that they did.
But some of them will.
Either way, though, has someone argued that economists instead of magistrates
and/or judges should decide criminal trials?
You seem to have forgotten to address that question.
They calculate the cost implications of various sentencing policies,
one of which may be adopted, depending on Parliament's "view"
Yes, I expect that Parliament might well employ some economists within various
government departments.
Or has somebody pointed out that there is such a thing as an economic view >>> on
the subject of penal policy?
Well.if they have, they are simply as stupid as you are.
Well done. More personal abuse.
Wouldn't it be a terrible shock if you ever managed to debate anything at all
on a civilised basis?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nf41k8F3n6vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/08/2026 07:17 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 23:43:06 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2026 03:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 14:59:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 23/08/2026 12:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:Fair enough but there are very major running costs of a prison, and the >>>>>> situation when you add a person to nearly full prison is totally different
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, >>>>>>>>>> which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income, >>>>>>>>> *all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101 >>>>>>>>>
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300 >>>>>>>>> prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing >>>>>>>>> at all !
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and staffing
new
prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private >>>>>>>> companies
in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of each
new
prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That >>>>>>>> would
be
quite high.
Capital costs are overheads (or, in USA-speak, just the singular >>>>>>> "overhead"), whether the new prison is directly built, rented, PFId or >>>>>>> anything else by way of acquisition.
Capital costs are overheads (that included staff salaries, though that >>>>>>> may, of coiurse, vary).
Running costs are distinct from capital costs and are not overheads. >>>>>>
from having to open a new prison for the next 1000 inmates.
Indeed.
But no-one would be foolish enough to try to load the entire overhead >>>>> cost of a new-build prison onto the first prisoner (or the first few >>>>> prisoners) housed there, for very obvious reasons.
Of course not. But it would be reasonable to divide it between the first >>>> prison-full.
And in the oppsite case, housing a marginal prisoner i na prison full >>>>> except for one upper bunk would not increase the unit's costs by BB's >>>>> u1,000 a week.
More total nonsense.
There are no such things as "marginal prisoners".
You... er... don't have a feel for English used in technical discourse, do >> you?
Precisely what has any of this got do with "technical discourse" ?
"Discourse" apparently being this week's new word.
"Marginal" being last week's.
In terns of prison administration and admissions there are no such
things as "marginal" prisoners. The system accommodates additional
prisoners every day.
Just because you learned a new word "marginal" last week, doesn't
mean you can simply apply it in all situations where something is
added to something else.
It only applies in the "technical" sense when this generates
marginal costs.
Are there any night classes starting in September round your way?
This u1000 a week cost per prisoner, has really hit you hard hasn't it ?
Clearly it's had a really big impact on all these fly-blown theories
of yours, you've possibly been touting for the past 50 odds years,
about the need to really punish people.
So that a recidivist shop lifter with a drug problem appears before
the Court; Their 5th offence this year. Total value of goods stolen from supermarkets u 645. Social cost in terms of impact on byestanders
assistants as surveyed by sociologists, and psychologists, and
quantified u355.
Total cost to Society u1000
Sentence: 1 year in prison at a cost of u52, 000.
And then when they come out its straight back on the drugs and the shoplifting
But at least they're been "punished".
Depending on sentencing policy, long term and short term, prisons
overall will want to maintain an element of *temporary *spare capacity
Which is already costed in. And then averaged out over the prison
population thus contributing to the u1000 a week cost
On induction a new prisoner may well be housed in that spare
capacity, until another prisoner is released.
None of that negates the concept of the "marginal prisoner".
Yes it does.
Oh and another new word there "concept" ? You're really picking this
stuff up quite quickly aren't you ?
Prisoners can be "marginal" in any of the ways it is possible to
measure prisoners. Height intelligence etc etc But those meaurements
apply to everyone and not just prisoners.
But none of these generate marginal costs.
Your thinking that it does (or might) simply highlights your lack of grasp of
English as used in technical description.
*but he isn't going to stay there permanently*
Because if he did, then to maintain the same level of spare capacity
within the system, they would need to build another half cell and install >>> another new bunk somewhere in the system.
Go on... try a few more sentences filled with random words.
I much prefer non random words myself.
Such as "It costs u1000 a week to lock someone up in prison"
bb
On 25/08/2026 08:54 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf41k8F3n6vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/08/2026 07:17 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 23:43:06 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 23/08/2026 03:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Aug 2026 at 14:59:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 23/08/2026 12:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:Fair enough but there are very major running costs of a prison, and the >>>>>>> situation when you add a person to nearly full prison is totally >>>>>>> different
On 23 Aug 2026 at 10:33:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
I'm not sure you've totally understood his point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3riF5dmbU1@mid.individual.net...
We do not spend that for each prisoner. You cannot count overheads, >>>>>>>>>>> which need
to be met even if the prison is empty.
As locking up prisoners doesn't generate any wealth or income, >>>>>>>>>> *all"* expenditure on prisons consiste of overheads. Economics 101 >>>>>>>>>>
So that according to your calculations locking up the 87,300 >>>>>>>>>> prisoners currently in Engiah and Welsh prisons, costs nothing >>>>>>>>>> at all !
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, to talk about the a
low marginal cost of an extra prisoner when we are building and >>>>>>>>> staffing
new
prisons as fast as we can (and providing huge profits to private >>>>>>>>> companies
in
doing so) is frankly misleading. We should be dividing the cost of >>>>>>>>> each
new
prison by one two thousand and using that as the marginal cost. That >>>>>>>>> would
be
quite high.
Capital costs are overheads (or, in USA-speak, just the singular >>>>>>>> "overhead"), whether the new prison is directly built, rented, PFId or >>>>>>>> anything else by way of acquisition.
Capital costs are overheads (that included staff salaries, though that >>>>>>>> may, of coiurse, vary).
Running costs are distinct from capital costs and are not overheads. >>>>>>>
from having to open a new prison for the next 1000 inmates.
Indeed.
But no-one would be foolish enough to try to load the entire overhead >>>>>> cost of a new-build prison onto the first prisoner (or the first few >>>>>> prisoners) housed there, for very obvious reasons.
Of course not. But it would be reasonable to divide it between the first >>>>> prison-full.
And in the oppsite case, housing a marginal prisoner i na prison full >>>>>> except for one upper bunk would not increase the unit's costs by BB's >>>>>> u1,000 a week.
More total nonsense.
There are no such things as "marginal prisoners".
You... er... don't have a feel for English used in technical discourse, do >>> you?
Precisely what has any of this got do with "technical discourse" ?
Don't misinterpret the word "technical".
You have managed to remind me of a conversation I took part in over fifty years ago in a Liverpool jazz club. Two people attending clearly weren't jazz
fans and understood nothing of the genre. They dismissed the skills of the drummer in a post-bebop band because he didn't sound like Keith Moon or someone. When I pointed out that he was an excellent drummer and a great technician, they asked what his engineering day job had to do with it.
And you've managed to make the same mistake.
"Discourse" apparently being this week's new word.
"Marginal" being last week's.
In terns of prison administration and admissions there are no such
things as "marginal" prisoners. The system accommodates additional
prisoners every day.
And each of them is added at the margin.
Now come on... if you can't understand that, you need to get some remedial English lessons.
Just because you learned a new word "marginal" last week, doesn't
mean you can simply apply it in all situations where something is
added to something else.
It only applies in the "technical" sense when this generates
marginal costs.
A new prisoner, additional to the nmber already in the prison, will always mean that additional costs arise. His first breakfast is an obvious example. Glad to see that you are starting to recoignise that, and to understand what "marginal" (a term from economics) means.
Well done.
Are there any night classes starting in September round your way?
This u1000 a week cost per prisoner, has really hit you hard hasn't it ?
Why don't you add on the cost of the police, the courts, legal aid and car-parking for the judges and make the amount even bigger?
Clearly it's had a really big impact on all these fly-blown theories
of yours, you've possibly been touting for the past 50 odds years,
about the need to really punish people.
So that a recidivist shop lifter with a drug problem appears before
the Court; Their 5th offence this year. Total value of goods stolen from
supermarkets u 645. Social cost in terms of impact on byestanders
assistants as surveyed by sociologists, and psychologists, and
quantified u355.
Total cost to Society u1000
Perhaps you'll be able to make sense of that word salad and explain it properly.
Perhaps not.
Sentence: 1 year in prison at a cost of u52, 000.
And then when they come out its straight back on the drugs and the
shoplifting
But at least they're been "punished".
Depending on sentencing policy, long term and short term, prisons
overall will want to maintain an element of *temporary *spare capacity >>>> Which is already costed in. And then averaged out over the prison
population thus contributing to the u1000 a week cost
On induction a new prisoner may well be housed in that spare
capacity, until another prisoner is released.
None of that negates the concept of the "marginal prisoner".
Yes it does.
Are you booked for panto this year, yet?
Oh and another new word there "concept" ? You're really picking this
stuff up quite quickly aren't you ?
Prisoners can be "marginal" in any of the ways it is possible to
measure prisoners. Height intelligence etc etc But those meaurements
apply to everyone and not just prisoners.
But none of these generate marginal costs.
:-)
Your thinking that it does (or might) simply highlights your lack of grasp >>> of
English as used in technical description.
*but he isn't going to stay there permanently*
Because if he did, then to maintain the same level of spare capacity
within the system, they would need to build another half cell and install >>>> another new bunk somewhere in the system.
Go on... try a few more sentences filled with random words.
I much prefer non random words myself.
...but can't manage it as a technique.
Such as "It costs u1000 a week to lock someone up in prison"
bb
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:9226514543.337dd8ab@uninhabited.net...
On 18 Aug 2026 at 23:26:22 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
Jason Arday's PhD thesis of 2015 can be found on here
https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4552/1/158222_Jason%20Arday_%20Final%20PhD%20Thesis%20Vesrion%20Final%20Draft%20Oct%202015.pdf
While the 2009 thesis of Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, which he is claimed
to have plundered is here
https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/4316/1/FulltextThesis.pdf
Both are straightforward PDF's
While here is the "crib sheet" of claimed plagiarised passages, as
discovered by the racist Nathan Cofnas
https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge
The yellow text represents what Cofnas claims, was copied.
As its impossible to copy text direct from his page, its necessary to
copy key passages manually. Starting maybe with
"student teachers are unique individuals"
which is at the start of a long if somewhat convoluted
paragraph in both.
And it really doesn't look too good,
As with the one exception of the passage concerning Dewey's
conceptualisation, which I can't find in Zwozdiak-Myers,
picking out key words especially attributions from Cofna's
selected yellow text, brings up lengthy identical/copied/stolen
passages in both theses.
And the copying/stealing of references is even worse IMO. As while
a person may be honestly mistaken in recognising a nicely turned
out paragraph as being one of their own, they're hardly likely to
mistake attributions and references to works they'd possibly
never even heard of.
All of which should have been spotted years ago.
bb
I can't speak to other subjects, but in medical publishing wholesale copying >> of references, either from other peoples' papers or your own is inevitable. On
any given topic there are strings of standard references that go in every
paper, which might have been read a decade or two ago.
That's not to detract from the seriousness of the plagiarisation of text that
you identify.
He isn't even copying them accurately
Try feeding "Price (2001: 44)" into both
Identical to start with but with paraphrasing towards the end
There's a reference to (Gray, 2004: 377) in the original;
while Arday's version is (Gray, 2010: 347)
I actually feel sorry for the bloke. He was presumably just trying
his luck and expecting to get caught out eventually. But people
just kept on believing him.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:9226514543.337dd8ab@uninhabited.net...
On 18 Aug 2026 at 23:26:22 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
Jason Arday's PhD thesis of 2015 can be found on here
https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4552/1/158222_Jason%20Arday_%20Final%20PhD%20Thesis%20Vesrion%20Final%20Draft%20Oct%202015.pdf
While the 2009 thesis of Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, which he is claimed
to have plundered is here
https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/4316/1/FulltextThesis.pdf
Both are straightforward PDF's
While here is the "crib sheet" of claimed plagiarised passages, as
discovered by the racist Nathan Cofnas
https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge
The yellow text represents what Cofnas claims, was copied.
As its impossible to copy text direct from his page, its necessary to
copy key passages manually. Starting maybe with
"student teachers are unique individuals"
which is at the start of a long if somewhat convoluted
paragraph in both.
And it really doesn't look too good,
As with the one exception of the passage concerning Dewey's
conceptualisation, which I can't find in Zwozdiak-Myers,
picking out key words especially attributions from Cofna's
selected yellow text, brings up lengthy identical/copied/stolen
passages in both theses.
And the copying/stealing of references is even worse IMO. As while
a person may be honestly mistaken in recognising a nicely turned
out paragraph as being one of their own, they're hardly likely to
mistake attributions and references to works they'd possibly
never even heard of.
All of which should have been spotted years ago.
bb
I can't speak to other subjects, but in medical publishing wholesale copying
of references, either from other peoples' papers or your own is inevitable. On
any given topic there are strings of standard references that go in every >>> paper, which might have been read a decade or two ago.
That's not to detract from the seriousness of the plagiarisation of text that
you identify.
He isn't even copying them accurately
Try feeding "Price (2001: 44)" into both
Identical to start with but with paraphrasing towards the end
There's a reference to (Gray, 2004: 377) in the original;
while Arday's version is (Gray, 2010: 347)
I actually feel sorry for the bloke. He was presumably just trying
his luck and expecting to get caught out eventually. But people
just kept on believing him.
I have no sympathy for him.
It has come to light his claims re being rCynon-verbalrCO etc were also bogus.
He was a conman who exploited the madness of DEI, assisted by DEI advocates who failed to check his claims.
His behaviour is no different to those who fake disability to claim
benefits or exploit other systems put in place to assist those with genuine issues.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:9226514543.337dd8ab@uninhabited.net...
On 18 Aug 2026 at 23:26:22 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
Jason Arday's PhD thesis of 2015 can be found on here
https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4552/1/158222_Jason%20Arday_%20Final%20PhD%20Thesis%20Vesrion%20Final%20Draft%20Oct%202015.pdf
While the 2009 thesis of Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, which he is claimed
to have plundered is here
https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/4316/1/FulltextThesis.pdf
Both are straightforward PDF's
While here is the "crib sheet" of claimed plagiarised passages, as
discovered by the racist Nathan Cofnas
https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge
The yellow text represents what Cofnas claims, was copied.
As its impossible to copy text direct from his page, its necessary to
copy key passages manually. Starting maybe with
"student teachers are unique individuals"
which is at the start of a long if somewhat convoluted
paragraph in both.
And it really doesn't look too good,
As with the one exception of the passage concerning Dewey's
conceptualisation, which I can't find in Zwozdiak-Myers,
picking out key words especially attributions from Cofna's
selected yellow text, brings up lengthy identical/copied/stolen
passages in both theses.
And the copying/stealing of references is even worse IMO. As while
a person may be honestly mistaken in recognising a nicely turned
out paragraph as being one of their own, they're hardly likely to
mistake attributions and references to works they'd possibly
never even heard of.
All of which should have been spotted years ago.
bb
I can't speak to other subjects, but in medical publishing wholesale copying
of references, either from other peoples' papers or your own is inevitable.
On
any given topic there are strings of standard references that go in every >>> paper, which might have been read a decade or two ago.
That's not to detract from the seriousness of the plagiarisation of text >>> that
you identify.
He isn't even copying them accurately
Try feeding "Price (2001: 44)" into both
Identical to start with but with paraphrasing towards the end
There's a reference to (Gray, 2004: 377) in the original;
while Arday's version is (Gray, 2010: 347)
I actually feel sorry for the bloke. He was presumably just trying
his luck and expecting to get caught out eventually. But people
just kept on believing him.
I have no sympathy for him.
It has come to light his claims re being 'non-verbal' etc were also bogus.
He was a conman who exploited the madness of DEI, assisted by DEI advocates who failed to check his claims.
His behaviour is no different to those who fake disability to claim
benefits or exploit other systems put in place to assist those with genuine issues.
On 19/08/2026 15:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On 18 Aug 2026 22:31:05 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[...]
I can't speak to other subjects, but in medical publishing wholesale
copying
of references, either from other peoples' papers or your own is
inevitable.
On any given topic there are strings of standard references that go
in every
paper, which might have been read a decade or two ago.
rCLif you copy from one author, itrCOs plagiarism, but if you copy from
many, itrCOs research.rCY
- Wilson Mizner
Can someone help me out here, because I really don't understand the
problem, but maybe that's because I've never written a thesis, let alone
a PhD.
What strikes me is that Mr Arjay's thesis is 400 pages long, and the
material that Nathan Cofnas claims has has been 'borrowed' probably
amounts to no more than 10-20 pages. (It is hard to tell, because it has
been presented in very narrow columns by Cofnas, but I'm guessing 10-20
pages worth.)
So, does that mean the Arjay thesis is well over 95% original?
Furthermore, it is necessary to read around the subject before writing
one's own thesis, and of course it's necessary to summarise the views of others. Arjay's thesis is not meant to be 100% original. It's meant to include others' work.
So, is the main issue here that Arjay simply didn't attribute around
10-20 pages of work correctly? If he had done so, he'd still have got
his PhD for the rest of his thesis, presumably.
The lack of attribution is serious, but it depends how central the
borrowed part of the thesis was to the central arguments, and I don't
think anyone has explained that. It may be that this was all background material. Even a small amount of unattributed copying can be fatal to
the PhD if it concerns original argumentation. But, did it?
A proper analysis would require some pretty hard work to understand the
full 400 pages as well as all the background material. Who has bothered
to do that? I note that a previous enquiry did look at the thesis, and
Arjay was exonerated. That enquiry would take into account things like
the supervision Arjay got. Maybe, his supervisor should be sacked?
So, what's going on here? Was the previous enquiry biased, as alleged?
Is there any evidence for that?
Oh, and I doubt that Arjay's athletic claims are true, but that's surely
got nothing to with his academic post?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:45:43 |
| Calls: | 1,196 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
16 files (19,622K bytes) |
| Messages: | 295,028 |