I must recommend an excellent editorial in the Guardian. Somebody there gets it; all the “he said she said” journalism that we get is a failure of the media to get to the basic truth of a story.
There can be no such equivocation in the week of a survey which showed that only around half of all Britons accept that Darwin’s theory of evolution is either true or probably true. In a democracy, citizens should respect each other’s beliefs; and citizens have a right to express their beliefs. But in a democracy, a newspaper has an obligation to what is right. The truth is that Darwin’s reasoning has in the last 150 years been supported overwhelmingly by discoveries in biology, geology, medicine and space science. The details will keep scientists arguing for another 200 years, but the big picture has not changed. All life is linked by common ancestry, including human life. The shameful lesson of this 200th anniversary of his birth is that Darwin’s contemporaries understood more clearly than many modern Britons.
That’s the lesson to be taught in this week, at the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. There is a hard core of fact to science, and all the waffling about to negate the ideas of common descent and natural selection is driven by ideology, not evidence.
The real question is where do the ideas come from? Creationism and ID are religious ideas. Religion does not negate science, nor science religion. But science can make religion look silly. So religion should be not seen as the second idea.
There are times when science has two competing ideas, and this should be addressed by the MSM. For example, punctuated equilibrium versus constant change. But in dealing with evolution, both are likely, as biology is often messy, and what works, works.
Good stuff, and I don’t mean to take away from the author’s correctness, but space science? I know the term evolution is used when discussing the life cycle of stars but, unless I’m wrong it has little to do with biological evolutionary theory. Right?
As always, I’m willing to be corrected.
David Perlman of the San Francisco Chronicle is a science journalist who seems to be in favor of the truth, and I’m glad he’s still around:
All of science owes debt to Darwin
Darwin: shy teen, med school dropout
“The shameful lesson of this 200th anniversary of his birth is that Darwin’s contemporaries understood more clearly than many modern Britons.”
What kind of ideological force is here now to make people more ignorant, that was not here 200 years before? Did it start in the 1930s or what?
“space science?”
I guess the author means chemical evolution in stars and supernovae as well as the evidence of the age of the earth, solar system and universe.
Yes, but it behooves us to think hard about why so many people cling to this particular non-rational belief and simply will not accept the reality of how we got here. There are both cultural and psychological explanations — it isn’t going to do much good just to repeat the evidence and argue on the basis of reason. That’s obviously not what this “debate” is about in the first place. I’m trying to wrestle with this a bit at my own site, I hope PZ will do it here.
Theos evolution survey seriously underestimates the British public
Rev BDC: Well a objection to an old Earth (and thus biological evolution) was that stars couldn’t be very old because they would burn out. They were thought to be burning balls of fuel and oxygen and process that was known of could pump out energy so hard for so long. The understanding of stars as fusion reactors knocked this away.
Let’s try that again starting “Well, an…”
At least I typoed responding the appropriate person.
In Belgium, a respected newspaper mentioned this 200th anniversary only in an opinion piece, in which the writer completely equivocates science and religion, and even claims that “unbelief is just a kind of belief”.
The book Flat Earth News, by Nick Davies, gives a good insight into news production in general, and why the quality of journalism has declined. It also demonstrates that the system can lead well-intentioned journalists to produce horribly biased and inaccurate stories.
It charts the rise of PR, agency, and special interest group, involvement in manufacturing the news.
There is also a website…
Yeah after a re-read I see it is my early morning reading comprehension failure at the root of what I was asking.
He said supported by “space science” where somehow I interpreted as applied to “space science”.
@ 10ch.org #4 (#comment-1381121)
I think the most significant difference between now and Victorian times is that now the ignorant expect to have their ill-informed opinions heard and given unmerited “respect” (and can even have whole websites, newspapers and other meejah outlets where village idiots form communities and reinforce each other in retardedness, including the staff of those!) rather than being made aware of and firmly kept in their place. Pretty much the only Victorians from which one would “hear” (via recorded history) are the relatively well-educated, intellectual (and comparatively rich) minority.
A lot of people respond negatively to evolution because it forces them to change their self image: they like to think the were created in the so-called image of god and are non-animals. The facts of evolutions chucks that view out the window, and they freak out. I’m hopeful that the Darwin Bicentennial will have a positive impact in showing that the “controversy” is manufactured by the religious right.
Fundamentalist Christianity can be traced to discussions by conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the first decade of the Twentieth Century. After World War I it was taken up by other conservative Christians, particularly Baptists. Fundamentalism was seen as a way to bolster orthodox Protestant Christianity against liberal theology, German scriptural critiques, evolution, and other modern threats.
Evolution was seen as a threat because it called into question the reliability of scripture. The fundamentalists insist upon divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and the Bible is seen as the keystone of their faith. So therefore any challenge to the infallibility of the Bible must be fought. Hence creationism is a vital part of fundamentalism.
“As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”
What a fantastic way of describing what I (independently concluded and) have argued for so long: that nation-states are Neanderthal, and we should care more for our fellow humans in general, and individuals in particular, based on who they are, rather than their accident of birth. Good to see that if I must be beaten to a denunciation of nation-states, it was Darwin wot dun it.
Well, I didn’t like the part about respecting beliefs…but the rest was spot on.
These polls on ‘belief’ of one side of the debate or the other are by definition subjective…
In polls such as the evolution one methinks a lot of folks are really ignorant of the detail of evolution…so edge their bets so to speak in order not to be accused of intolerance on one hand or indeed atheism…which to middle class Brit society smacks as a cultish type name depicting communist sympathies…reds under the beds…tis a hangover from the 30’s …hard to really shake it!…but it is not automatically regarded as anti-religious….
No doubt there are those who are vehemently opposed on ideological grounds..but in the main it is lack of understanding of the premise not ideological attitude that decides the count.
Same fallacy might be true of the ‘Are you a Christian’ type of questions posed…
In the past this has conjured up visions of 60%-70% of folks in Blighty professing Christianity…
In the main the vast majority of Brits I have known or know…describe themselves as Christian…which is okay…if not alarming… except they have not a religious bone in their body…
No church …no ‘prasin de lawd’…no bible interpretations beyond the basic commandments…
They tend to subscribe to the general christian philosophy of thou shalt not steal…murder… coveting ya neighbors ass…which develops into anti-rape…anti-violence…anti-crime etc….but balk at the ‘minor’ biblical scriptural commands…regarding them as rather dubious.
All that but absolutely no interest in jeebus or god.
But on forms and census (censui?) and probably the odd poll they are ticking the ‘Christian’ box…cos they live in a basic christian society…a WASP by any other name in fact.
So methinks there is a form of hope…maybe belonging to a society should evolve into another societal description and not rely on ‘Christian’ as a handy tag…cos methinks that in the main that is all it is!…if that happened then polls might reflect the true state of play…around 25-30%…still to high but a tad better!
But then again I am an optimist!
SEF #13
I guess you meant the willfully “ignorant. True ignorance in a thinking person sends that person on a search for enlightenment, does it not.
Actually “applied to space science” would also have been plausible if he was talking about Lee Smolin’s ideas about cosmology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin#Fecund_universes
Kimpatsu@16: I’m pretty sure Marx (amongst others) beat Darwin to the punch wrt internationalism.
Thanks to Damian @ # 7 for partially clarifying what threatened to become a serious case of cognitive dissonance on my part this morning.
On the top of the Pharyngula front page I saw a piece asserting, “…only around half of all Britons accept that Darwin’s theory of evolution is either true or probably true.”
A couple of items down was a pair of charts showing that in the UK, those who accepted evolution by natural selection numbered a hair over 75%.
The urge to go back to bed, particularly powerful on a Monday morning, was overcome only by recourse to my advanced state as a member of homo overcommittedus.
Margaret Wente who is not a scientist published
EXPLOSIVE CHANGE
Darwin, DNA and Destiny in the Globe and Mail Saturday, February 7. Check out comment #1
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wcowent07/BNStory/specialComment/
My guess would be (similar to what was suggested before): Democracy.
Of course not the system itself, but more the idea transprted by it that everyone’s opinion has the same value (as in the voting booth). This certainly created some anti-inetellectualism and a scepticism towards authority (also academic authority). That does not mean that democracy is bad. It means, that it must be clearly communicated that the involvement of masses in the politicial process cannot be mirrored in science and that opinion and facts are two different things. Also that the latter (provided by science) might be helpful in building up the former but never the other way round.
Well, the rest of the editorial might well be great, but as JD already (#17) pointed out:
bzzzt. Wrong.
Thanks for that Damian, as soon as I saw the poll was by Theos I knew there was something fishy about it. What is really sad is that they are so out of touch they think that biasing the poll like that is not going to get called in this day and age.
They say everyone is entitled to their opinion. I say Bullocks! Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.
Its not my quote, I read something like in on talk.origins years ago.
If any of you Pharyngulites happen to find yourselves in Leiden, the Netherlands next Thursday, do come and join the Charles Darwin Bicentennial Piss-Up, to be held at a pub called the WW (go to the Breestraat, i.e. Main Street and ask for directions), starting around 9 o´clock in the evening local time. Or organise your own Charles Darwin Bicentennial Piss-Up in a place of your choosing if Leiden is a bit out of the way. Happy Monkey for CD!
Sigmund @ 5
You anticipated my remarks with yours in answer to RevBigdumbChimp @ 2. If there is any place to do pure science, then it is in outer space in the coming decades. What could be more enthralling from pure science than to understand the birth, chemical and physical actions, and that eventual transmittal of that incredible stuff into space for life to start elsewhere in the Universe? All that we are and know originated in stars. Just mind-blowing!
Of course, if viewed in relation to a star eventually causing the birth of the great Charles Darwin whom I revere, then cosmology holds a high regard in my estimation for this small matter that it has no recollection of. I equate Darwin with Einstein, who also with sheer brain power and all the evidence at hand, came up with the theories that still bogles the mind! Two great men of science who comstantly remind the religious retards that they are still disillusioned in their warped thinking.
The Guardian article on Darwin is excellent, and I have printed and added it to my stuff on Darwin. Of course, to the religious morons the accolades paid to Darwin are dismissed. To us they are deserved and gratified.
“In a democracy, citizens should respect each other’s beliefs; and citizens have a right to express their beliefs.”
I will tolerate another’s belief (and not the perjurative sense of gritted teeth while counting to 10), I’ll even defend their right to be stoopid in public. I will not respect such beliefs, nor will I necessarily show respect to the person espousing them.
ArtificialHabitat and JD have already commented on this, but I’ll add a bit:
That bit about respecting each other’s beliefs is pernicious nonsense, and is the underpinning for the moves to suppress criticism of religious beliefs. I respect the right of others to hold whatever loony beliefs they wish (so long as their acts based on those beliefs don’t impinge negatively on others), but I’m under no obligation to refrain from believing and saying out loud that the beliefs themselves are loony. It’s those who fear that they are unable to defend their beliefs as being worth holding who want unearned respect for those beliefs.
I just heard that the Northern Ireland Environment Minister has vetoed an ad campaign that encourages householders to save energy and money. Claims AGW is a fraud.
Its notable that NI is the one part of UK where religion interferes in politics.
Yeah, Eddie, I saw that story as well.
He said that was “patent nonsense”.
I must admit that The Guardian is rapidly becoming my favourite UK newspaper. It’s traditional bias is left-wing middle class whereas I’ve always favoured the right-wing broadsheet The Daily Telegraph.
The Telegraph has been dumbing down for over a year, with risible science coverage and a tendency to publish the sort of dodgy surveys the Daily Mail is known for.
The Guardian is the home of Dr Ben Goldacre and had the balls to stand by Dr G during the recent Matthias Rath case. And now this editorial which I read this morning… There is hope.
Some of the most pleasant moments in my life center around reading essays and books written by scientists and science journalists. The joy of finally grasping a concept, or making an unanticipated connection is a hearty jolt to the intellect, at once joyous and awesome. (distinct recollection of feeling disconnected from and in motion relative to my own worldview then lurching into a new orientation with it, finding things looking different, fresher.)
There are so many sources of science savvy available, why don’t more people avail themselves of this font of increasingly important knowledge? It doesn’t cost very much and it lasts a long time. (apologies to Tom Prine.)
Unfortunately the wingnuts, fundies and woomeisters have been successful at, dare I say it, “framing” science issues that challenge their superstitions, paranoid fantasies and scams. They use the term “opinion” and say all positions have equal weight while challenging the “suspect” motives of scientists. Unless of course you challenge their beliefs… then you are rude, wrong, immoral, against children and un-American.
I find it very hard to believe that only 50% of people in the UK accept evolution as the truth. I don’t know anybody who denies it is a fact. I am hardly a member of some intellectual elite, I am proudly working class and was even educated in a religious school (admittedly it was Catholic). I am always very doubtful regarding these surveys.
RBH:: That bit about respecting each other’s beliefs is pernicious nonsense
It’s sloppiness, conflating our obligation to respect someone’s right to a belief with respecting the belief (or the choices they make because of it).
Yes, anyone has the right to believe any sort of blibbering looniness they want. I, however, reserve the right to believe they are a blibbering loony for doing so, and furthermore the right to say so in so many words. I also believe I should be allowed to oppose their attempts to spread their flavor of blibbering looniness by seeking spread of the flavor of blibbering looniness usually known as “science”, which I generally prefer and which has proven of some considerable historically.
#32 & #33
How did Wilson get to be Environment Minister? Isn’t there a ministry of sport or culture where he could be equally useless but in a less harmful way?
There’s a reason The Grauniad has been my main newspaper for over 20 years, even when, as now, I’m not living in the UK. Even with the gaft about respecting loonies, this editorial is an example of that reason. Plus, The Grauniad is owned by an independent trust, not some megalomaniac twit or greedy shareholders, and hence is largely insulated from outside interference.
Unfortunately, these qualities have not yet carried over in The Observer (the Sunday newspaper now owned by The Grauniad), which, to me, rarely rises above teh stoopid. There’s probably numerous reasons for this, mostly, I suspect, connected with The Observer‘s history.
It’s an Irish thing ;-)
’tisHimself
Think of it as like israeli politics, but with Leibermann’s nazi party and the theocrats nazi party being the establishment.
Also, there was recently a strategic partnership between the DUP (think phelps as a state senator) and Walton’s Conservatives.
“Respect a persons belief?” I do not see belief as something one selects. Much of what is believed around the world is nothing more than something between ignorance and insanity.
I admit to the proposition that each of us cannot be punished for merely believing in nonsense. In that vein each has a right to any cockamamie belief but I am not required to respect that belief, only the right to hold it. I do not see that any of us deliberately sets out to hold wacky ideas. Those beliefs are no more entitled to respect than, say, beliefs in homeopothy or a flat Earth
EU Bad-Banken
Verschiedene Bad-Bank-Lösungen
von Raivo Pommer
Die Kommission will EU-weite Regeln zur Definition von toxischen Papieren und zur Identifikation jener Papiere entwickeln, die in ein staatliches Auffangbecken übernommen werden dürfen. Auch die Bewertung und die Verwaltung dieser Papiere sollen gemeinsamen Regeln unterworfen werden. Entscheidend sei, dass die Verluste, die der Staat durch eine Auffanglösung erleide, begrenzt würden, heißt es in dem Papier. Viele Risikopapiere seien „strukturierte Produkte“, die voraussichtlich keinen Marktwert mehr hätten und nur mit „modellbasierten Schätzungen“ bewertet werden könnten.
Only a year? Rather more than that I suspect. There are only three reasons for visiting the telegraph website these days
a) the Alex cartoon
b) James May’s motoring rambles
c) Kev Ash’s bike tests – and then only because he & I were both in the Imperial Bike Club together at college.
Years ago – at the beginning of ‘real’ time – the telegraph site was worth visiting because it was pretty much the only newspaper with a plausible site. These days it is mostly lie an online version of ‘This England’.
meself@40, Even with the gaft about respecting loonies …
Gaft? I meant gaffe. Gaffe. What a gaft.
Yes, I’d also say it was considerably more than a year of decline for the Telegraph. It’s still a long way above The Sun, The Daily Mail and even somewhat above The Times in that paper’s current corrupted incarnation though. Previously (some decades back and under old management) The Times would have been regarded as having the edge in superiority.
Guardian editorials are consistently on the money when it comes to science.
And if you enjoy occasionally putting the boot in to some woolly-minded religious apologist, there’s always a steady selection provided for us at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief
SEF:
> …the Telegraph. It’s still a long way above … The Daily Mail
I disagree. The Telegraph is now the Daily Mail With Bigger Words. Their science coverage is shameful bordering on dangerous (e.g. climate change denial).
“biology is often messy, and what works, works.”
That’s why it might be a little too early to give Darwin the checkered flag.
The questions (some of them?) asked in the Theos/ComRes poll were, with choices of ‘Definitely true’, ‘Probably true’, ‘Probably untrue’, ‘Definitely untrue’, and ‘Don’t know’:
Q1. Young Earth Creationism is the idea that God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years. In your opinion is Young Earth Creationism:
Q2. Theistic evolution is the idea that evolution is the means that God used for the creation of all living things on earth. In your opinion is Theistic evolution:
Q3. Atheistic evolution is the idea that evolution makes belief in God unnecessary and absurd. In your opinion is Atheistic evolution:
Q4. Intelligent Design is the idea that evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages. In your opinion is Intelligent Design:
There are breakdowns by age and region there (with a bizarrely low number of people responding in the Eastern region – I don’t know if that indicates a problem with the way the poll was conducted or not). Worryingly, those under 35 seem quite willing to believe in Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design, as well as those over 65 (or they’re too stupid to understand poll questions, of course). Something has gone wrong in education. And there was me thinking the reassuring sight of David Attenborough on the telly would convince anyone that evolution is the only game in town.
Indeed – and it matches up quite well with that under 35 bracket (though under 40 would have been closer). The UK government got rid of grammar schools, instituted a fad for not telling children how well or badly they were doing and progressively dummed down the science and maths content and overall time allocation for science on bringing in the GCSE exams (the initial drop was to 2/3 of previously). So you can expect anyone much under the mid-40s to be significantly less well educated the younger they are.
Silver fox,what motivates you to espouse foolishness at so many posts. Evolution is an observed fact. Natural selection was Darwin’s contribution to explain this observed fact. His was the first such theory tested and found to be viable It is only one of a number of tested/ verified theories that contribute to the observed fact of evolution. Others include genetic drift, founder principle, vicariance, and random mutation. Besides these major contributors, each group of plants and animals often have additional mechanisms peculiar to that group: species swarms, passaging, symbionts, mutualism, hybridization, to name those that instantly pop to mind.
Reading (real science) books would do yuo a world of good.
Don’t knock the big words. That in itself is a small plus on the Telegraph’s side.
I was thinking more of other things, eg finance, but also their dodgy medical coverage. I hadn’t noticed much science at all in my various intermittent exposures to the paper (ie very much including that medical stuff)! However, overall they don’t seem quite as screaming-in-your-face nuts as the Daily Mail is on just about everything I’ve come across in its online incarnation. So I’m sticking with my relative assessment of the two of them.
You’re welcome to try and find any story where the Daily Mail isn’t worse than the Telegraph though.
Silver Fox, if you ever say something of intelligence and pertinence I might have heart palpitations. But you always show your lack of understanding. What I was saying is that there is no one pathway for evolution. Things happen and the mechanism to keep surviving may vary. But then, you fail to understand this since you think there is only one true path–one you have not proven in spite of demands to do so. As a result, you just look stupid and pathetic. You should show some intelligence and leave.
DIE HSH NORDBANK AM DEUTSCHLAND
von Raivo Pommer
Die HSH Nordbank hat das vergangene Jahr nach vorläufigen Zahlen mit einem Verlust von bis zu 2,8 Milliarden Euro abgeschlossen. Das teilte die Bank am Freitag in Hamburg mit.
Die Abschreibungen für das abgelaufene Jahr bezifferte das Institut auf 1,6 Milliarden Euro. Dazu kommen eine erhöhte Risikovorsorge im Kreditgeschäft von 1,4 Milliarden Euro sowie weitere Einmaleffekte im Gefolge der Finanzmarktkrise von 0,9 Milliarden Euro. Das sind zum Beispiel die Pleite der US-Bank Lehman Brothers und die Zahlungsunfähigkeit Islands. Der Zins- und Provisionsüberschuss, also die Erträge der Bank, betrugen zwei Milliarden Euro.
Mit den Abschreibungen des Jahres 2007 wird die HSH Nordbank durch die Finanzmarktkrise somit insgesamt mit rund 3,8 Milliarden Euro belastet. Die Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft KPMG sei bei ihrer intensiven Suche nach weiteren Risiken im wesentlichen nicht fündig geworden, hieß es aus informierten Kreisen im Umfeld der Bank. Insgesamt hält die HSH Nordbank noch Wertpapiere über rund 22 Milliarden Euro im sogenannten Kreditersatzgeschäft.
Wegen der hohen Abschreibungen und Verluste hatte die Bank als eines der ersten Institute den staatlichen Rettungsschirm des Bankenfonds SoFFin in Anspruch genommen und eine Liquiditätsgarantie von 30 Milliarden Euro erhalten. Davon sind bislang für die Bank aber nur zehn Milliarden Euro nutzbar, so lange nicht alle Auflagen des SoFFin erfüllt sind. Bis Samstag (21.2.) muss die Bank ein neues Geschäftsmodell und die notwendige Kapitalausstattung vorweisen.
Die Bank schlägt daher ihren Eigentümern eine Reihe von Maßnahmen vor, um die notwendige Kernkapitalquote von sieben Prozent zu erreichen. Ein wesentlicher Baustein ist die Erhöhung des Eigenkapitals um drei Milliarden Euro. Dieser Betrag wäre von den Haupteignern Hamburg (30,4 Prozent) und Schleswig-Holstein (29,1 Prozent) aufzubringen. Auch der US-amerikanische Investor J. Christopher Flowers (25,7 Prozent) habe eine Beteiligung an der Kapitalerhöhung noch nicht abgelehnt. Definitiv nicht mitziehen werden jedoch die schleswig-holsteinischen Sparkassen (14,8 Prozent).
Zusätzlich zu dem erhöhten Eigenkapital will die HSH Nordbank eine Risikoabschirmung von zehn Milliarden Euro von den Eigentümern, was ebenfalls die Kernkapitalquote erhöht. Schließlich steht die Verkleinerung der Bank und die Konzentration auf die Kerngeschäfte in der norddeutschen Region und auf die Spezialgebiete Schiffe, Flugzeuge, Immobilien und erneuerbare Energien bevor. Die Bank hatte bereits angekündigt, ihre Bilanzsumme von mehr als 200 auf rund 120 Milliarden Euro zu reduzieren. Der bisher veröffentlichte Abbau von 750 der 4300 Stellen dürfte vermutlich nicht ausreichen; es werden wohl mehr als 1000 Stellen werden.
zu lang; las nicht
Scotland Bank ist krisis
von Raivo Pommer
Die verstaatlichte britische Großbank Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) will sich Medienberichten zufolge von zahlreichen Unternehmensteilen trennen und bis zu 20 000 Jobs abbauen.
Der neue RBS-Chef Stephen Hester will sich künftig auf das Kerngeschäft der Bank konzentrieren und die übrigen Geschäfte für einen späteren Verkauf zunächst in eine Unterabteilung der Bank auslagern, wie mehrere britische Medien am Wochenende berichteten. Zuvor war war bereits spekuliert worden, dass RBS bis zu 20 000 Stellen abbauen werde. Das wären etwa 10 Prozent der weltweit Beschäftigten.
Zu den ausgelagerten RBS-Sparten sollen die Geschäfte in Asien und Australien gehören. Außerdem will sich RBS den Berichten zufolge aus der Hälfte der 60 Länder zurückziehen, in denen die Bank derzeit Geschäfte betreibt. Zudem werde erwartet, dass RBS ein neues Rettungsprogramm der Regierung in Anspruch nimmt und faule Kredite in Höhe von mindestens 200 Milliarden Pfund (225 Mrd Euro) auf Kosten der Steuerzahler gegen Zahlungsausfälle versichert.
Die Pläne sollen am Donnerstag vorgestellt werden, wenn RBS seine Zahlen für das abgelaufene Geschäftsjahr präsentiert, hieß es in den Berichten weiter. RBS hatte bereits einen Rekordverlust in der britischen Unternehmensgeschichte von 28 Milliarden Pfund in Aussicht gestellt. Die Bank war im Strudel der Finanzkrise ins Schlingern geraten, auch weil 2007 Teile der niederländischen Bank ABN Amro übernommen worden waren. Mittlerweile befindet sich RBS zu 68 Prozent in Staatsbesitz.
The UK government got rid of grammar schools, instituted a fad for not telling children how well or badly they were doing – SEF
Grammar schools still exist in some areas, e.g. Kent, Northern Ireland. My 13-year-old son still gets told how well or badly he’s doing. Currently, kids in England at least are enormously over-tested – far more than when I was at school 37-50 years ago.
Hamlet-bin oder nein
von raivo pommer-raimo1@hot.ee-Eesti
So zwischen 40 und 60 Veranstaltungen absolviert Klaus Michael Groll im Jahr. Zuletzt informierte der Präsident des Deutschen Forums für Erbrecht die Menschen in Nordhorn, Bad Nenndorf und Stuttgart über die neue Erbschaftsteuer. “Die Säle sind nach wie vor proppenvoll”, berichtet Groll. Die Menschen wüssten zwar, dass nun neue Regeln bei der Erbschaftsteuer gelten. “Viele sind aber verunsichert und wollen wissen, was denn nun genau auf sie zukommt”, ergänzt der Düsseldorfer Erbrechtsanwalt Claus-Henrik Horn. Hier die Fragen, die den beiden Fachleuten am häufigsten gestellt werden:
Für welche Fälle gilt das neue Recht überhaupt?
Zunächst einmal für alle Erbfälle und Schenkungen nach dem 31.Dezember 2008. Beim Erben gilt stets der Todestag des Erblassers als Stichtag, bei Schenkungen ist es der Schenkungstag. Aber es gibt eine Ausnahme: Ist ein Erbfall zwischen dem 1. Januar 2007 und dem 31. Dezember 2008 eingetreten, haben die Erben ein Wahlrecht. Sie können entscheiden, ob für sie das neue oder das alte Recht gilt. “In bestimmten Fällen kann es sinnvoll sein, einen bereits abgeschlossenen Erbfall neu aufzurollen und dafür das neue Recht in Anspruch zu nehmen”, sagt Anwalt Groll.