[minim]

@desmondy wrote:

Interesting yet somewhat simplistic logic above.

Your statistics don’t account for the quality of the athletes.
The USA and China have an enormous pool of people to pick their athletes from so it stands to reason that theirs will be of a very high standard and thus monopolize the medals.
Would be interesting to know the percentage of young people in those countries actively competing in sports compared to us. I’d guess it will be much higher.

I’m so proud of team GB though. I can imagine a whole generation taking up sport because of them. If so the cost has been worth it!
Saying that though when i asked my children if the Olympics had been on in their their house they answered no! I hope that’s not the norm!

To get into the olympics you have to get through qualifying, so it is assumed that they are all good, although some are going to be better than others, and some may peak too soon and be rubbish on the day, whilst others peak bang on the nose and do really really well. That’s all about training and preparing. The statistics were just to highlight sheer numbers, and the fact that there is a correlation between numbers of medals won and the number of competitors, but only a vague correlation, because as we have the most entrants this olympic games, you would think we’d get the most medals, but obviously we won’t.

And, I think they’ve done really well too, and not only that but what a truly lovely bunch of people they all are. Warms the cockles of yer heart it does. :D

[minim]

Great Britain has 541 entered into the olympics this year
China has 380
USA has 530

Stands to reason that the countries who throw the most entrants into the mix are likely to come out with more medals. Most of the European countries are up in the 1-2 hundreds, with Russia at 436.

Actually if you look at medals won versus amount of people taking part, China and Korea are doing pretty well!

In 2008 we sent out only 312 people in teamGB and we still managed to get 47 medals (19 golds). So statistically its no wonder we have got more this time.

But….am getting fed up of having to listen to the National Anthem…. dreary song!

[minim]

and in boolean logic that would be

If CRB(CRB) = “English” and CRB(CRB) = “French” and != “caught” and >=99.99%
then
begin
“J in France” = 00.01%
end
report “numpty” nl

[minim]

@j_in_france wrote:

@minim wrote:

and to pre-empt your next response…..

you only said you had a French certificate…… not a CRB

and ……….yes I have… and mine is enhanced ner ner ner

as I have been in France since 2004 well before enhanced CRB checks were initiated it really means naff all except I have passed CRB checks in two countries to your one

It means naff all anyway, as you so rightly put in an earlier thread, because they may be nearly safe, but people “slip through”. So two CRB checks are just as useless as one.

[minim]

and to pre-empt your next response…..

you only said you had a French certificate…… not a CRB

and ……….yes I have… and mine is enhanced ner ner ner

[minim]

@j_in_france wrote:

@minim wrote:

@j_in_france wrote:

@minim wrote:

hmm overuse of the word numpty…. and anyone can pass a CRB check…. Ian Huntley did. Not saying you are a pedophile or anything, just saying that a police check proves nothing in this country and I doubt France is any better.

Interesting that you should raise the Ian Huntley issue. The Soham murders were ten years ago and the result of that has meant that CRB checks have become much more rigorous. There will always be people who may slip through, as there will always be bent coppers and drug cheating athletes, but I would say that in 99.99% of cases they are correct. Saying anyone can pass a CRB check is just a glib statement and guess what overused word springs to mind….. just saying

You were the one that said you had got a certificate proving you were safe to teach children in France. I was replying to that, but as you so rightly say, there will always be people who slip through. And you may say 99.99% but that sounds a bit glib. So what, exactly, do THEY say?

Just saying like :D

Have you been CRB checked? just asking like

More to the point have you?

[minim]

Probably not, but i think Wake just won :)

[minim]

Oh dear…. I’m not sure of the rules of internet bantering, but am pretty sure that to insult someone with the same insult just hurled at you means you have just lost.

[minim]

@j_in_france wrote:

@minim wrote:

hmm overuse of the word numpty…. and anyone can pass a CRB check…. Ian Huntley did. Not saying you are a pedophile or anything, just saying that a police check proves nothing in this country and I doubt France is any better.

Interesting that you should raise the Ian Huntley issue. The Soham murders were ten years ago and the result of that has meant that CRB checks have become much more rigorous. There will always be people who may slip through, as there will always be bent coppers and drug cheating athletes, but I would say that in 99.99% of cases they are correct. Saying anyone can pass a CRB check is just a glib statement and guess what overused word springs to mind….. just saying

You were the one that said you had got a certificate proving you were safe to teach children in France. I was replying to that, but as you so rightly say, there will always be people who slip through. And you may say 99.99% but that sounds a bit glib. So what, exactly, do THEY say?

Just saying like :D

[minim]

hmm overuse of the word numpty…. and anyone can pass a CRB check…. Ian Huntley did. Not saying you are a pedophile or anything, just saying that a police check proves nothing in this country and I doubt France is any better.

[Author]

Posts