SUE REID: These nurses from Down Under are in Britain and desperate to work for an understaffed NHS after the Grenfell Tower disaster - but red tape and a crazy English test stop them

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You're the one banging on about it's too high, not anyone else.    If you can't grasp the allusion I've just posted regarding degrees, then there's no point trying to explain further.   You're hell bent on your opinion, which is fine.   So we'll agree to disagree.

Calm down petal, its only a debate and I am not the only one calling for this to be lowered.

Again nobody is asking for the standard of degrees to be lowered.

Hence the absurdity of your point when this is based on English competency, which varies. In Universities it need only be 6. In Other English speaking countries its 6.5.

If they have nurses on this competency will  no ill effect from doing so, then there is no reason why here we can not reduce to the same level

So explain to me how a level of between 6.5 and 7 would make a person unable to be an effective nurse?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Calm down petal, its only a debate and I am not the only one calling for this to be lowered.

Again nobody is asking for the standard of degrees to be lowered.

Hence the absurdity of your point when this is based on English competency, which varies. In Universities it need only be 6. In Other English speaking countries its 6.5.

If they have nurses on this competency will  no ill effect from doing so, then there is no reason why here we can not reduce to the same level

So explain to me how a level of between 6.5 and 7 would make a person unable to be an effective nurse?

Nobody on here is in need of calming down.   We're just fine, don't worry.

Those levels are set by the powers that be.   That's just the way it is.   If people can't accept that, go nurse elsewhere.  

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Because they're not coming into the country, are they?   What part of "this test is designed as a safety net against incoming incompetence", don't you get?

So based on your reasoning, then all Nurses in Australia and the US are unsafe, as they set this at 6.5?

You need to show me how and why at 7 is valid for a safety net when clearly else where its not?

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Nobody on here is in need of calming down.   We're just fine, don't worry.

Those levels are set by the powers that be.   That's just the way it is.   If people can't accept that, go nurse elsewhere.  

So you admit its set by people and thus its open to questioning whether that level is correct or not?

Well your way would have less nurses, more as nurses doing overtime, thus more too tired to carry out their roles effectively. More mistakes, more patients dying.

Sorry explain to me how your view which says to go elsewhere helps here?

Again you are not answering my questions

So explain to me how a level of between 6.5 and 7 would make a person unable to be an effective nurse?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So based on your reasoning, then all Nurses in Australia and the US are unsafe, as they set this at 6.5?

You need to show me how and why at 7 is valid for a safety net when clearly else where its not?

I don't 'need' to show you anything.  You 'need' to just accept that's the standard this country has set.  Perhaps it'll change, perhaps it won't.    Different countries have different laws and standards.  

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I don't 'need' to show you anything.  You 'need' to just accept that's the standard this country has set.  Perhaps it'll change, perhaps it won't.    Different countries have different laws and standards.  

So your view is to just accept something, even if you think it could be wrong?

How did laws on Homosexuality change?

By accepting the previous ones that criminalized homosexuality?

You have still failed to answer my question

So explain to me how a level of between 6.5 and 7 would make a person unable to be an effective nurse?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you admit its set by people and thus its open to questioning whether that level is correct or not?

Well your way would have less nurses, more as nurses doing overtime, thus more too tired to carry out their roles effectively. More mistakes, more patients dying.

Sorry explain to me how your view which says to go elsewhere helps here?

Again you are not answering my questions

So explain to me how a level of between 6.5 and 7 would make a person unable to be an effective nurse?

You make it sound as though it's me personally who's set the standard.  

We seem to have plenty of nurses who pass the test, Didge.   The problem is more that so many British applicants are turned down due to lack of funding for their training.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So your view is to just accept something, even if you think it could be wrong?

How did laws on Homosexuality change?

By accepting the previous ones that criminalized homosexuality?

You have still failed to answer my question

So explain to me how a level of between 6.5 and 7 would make a person unable to be an effective nurse?

It doesn't.   If you pass at 6.5 in Oz, fine.  If you pass at 7 in the UK, fine.   You're the one inventing the problem?

Anyway I have to work.  Laters.

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Because they're not coming into the country, are they?   What part of "this test is designed as a safety net against incoming incompetence", don't you get?

So based on your reasoning, then all Nurses in Australia and the US are unsafe, as they set this at 6.5?

You need to show me how and why at 7 is valid for a safety net when clearly else where its not?

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You make it sound as though it's me personally who's set the standard.  

We seem to have plenty of nurses who pass the test, Didge.   The problem is more that so many British applicants are turned down due to lack of funding for their training.

How many British nurses take the test?

Zero

And we have a vast shortage of nurses.

You still are failing to say why we cannot have the level at 6.5 as others do?

This would allow more people to fill the nursing shortages here.

Its a no brainer, especially when you cannot show me what detrimental effect would be, by doing so.

You even admitted that the difference between 6.5 and 7 would be minimal

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So based on your reasoning, then all Nurses in Australia and the US are unsafe, as they set this at 6.5?

You need to show me how and why at 7 is valid for a safety net when clearly else where its not?

Are the tests the same as here though? Maybe they're harder, so they set the pass level a little lower.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are the tests the same as here though? Maybe they're harder, so they set the pass level a little lower.

Speculation.

Can you back up your claim?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

How many British nurses take the test?

Zero

And we have a vast shortage of nurses.

You still are failing to say why we cannot have the level at 6.5 as others do?

This would allow more people to fill the nursing shortages here.

Its a no brainer, especially when you cannot show me what detrimental effect would be, by doing so.

You even admitted that the difference between 6.5 and 7 would be minimal

Nobody here can show a detrimental effect, but neither can they show a benefit to lowering the level. We don't know what exactly the impact of the tests is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Speculation.

Can you back up your claim?

I didn't make a claim. I asked a question.

If you're claiming they're the same, you back it up. You're the one making a song and dance, despite knowing nothing about nursing.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nobody here can show a detrimental effect, but neither can they show a benefit to lowering the level. We don't know what exactly the impact of the tests is.

Well as seen its lower elsewhere.

So you should be able to show if having a lower standard has such an effect.

Can you?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't make a claim. I asked a question.

If you're claiming they're the same, you back it up. You're the one making a song and dance, despite knowing nothing about nursing.

I do not need to back up anything as the onus is on you making the claim.

So in your own time

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I do not need to back up anything as the onus is on you making the claim.

So in your own time

So you can't answer the question, and you have no idea if the tests are easier here then. Well done - you're getting there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well as seen its lower elsewhere.

So you should be able to show if having a lower standard has such an effect.

Can you?

But are the tests the same? If you say they are, you need to back that up.

How can anyone show if having a lower standard would have an impact either way? It hasn't happened.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you can't answer the question, and you have no idea if the tests are easier here then. Well done - you're getting there.

Its not me making the claim.

So you failed to back up your claim

Priceless

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Its not me making the claim.

So you failed to back up your claim

Priceless

I haven't made a claim. This thread is a good example of why it's important to have a good grasp of English, including reading English and understanding what people have said. You would have failed by a mile.

Thorin wrote:Oh and they use the same tests Rags lol

https://www.ielts.org/what-is-ielts/ielts-for-migration

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:Oh and they use the same tests Rags lol

https://www.ielts.org/what-is-ielts/ielts-for-migration

There you see? You can answer a question if you try hard enough. Try to be quicker next time, and stop dithering about creating an argument. However, although the categories are the same, are the questions exactly the same or of the same difficulty?

If they're the same, but countries are free to set their own standards, someone here has decided that they need a 7 to pass. Why are you questioning that? Do you not think that 7 is reasonable?

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a good job you didn't have to pass a logic test to get whatever job you claim you have Didge. You would have scored nil points.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a good job you didn't have to pass a logic test to get whatever job you claim you have Didge. You would have scored nil points.

Thank you sweetie, I know when your points have sunk because you resort to the above poor misdirection.

Anything else?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Thank you sweetie, I know when your points have sunk because you resort to the above poor misdirection.

Anything else?

Well you are being a bit of a tit, you must admit.

Raggamuffin wrote:If lowering the standards means putting patients at risk, I don't think they should do it. We've already had some tragedies because of misunderstandings.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If lowering the standards means putting patients at risk, I don't think they should do it. We've already had some tragedies because of misunderstandings.

So it goes back to my original point.

If other countries have a lower level based off the same tests.
Can you show they have more mistakes and tragedies based off English competency?

If not your claim is speculative bullshit

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So it goes back to my original point.

If other countries have a lower level based off the same tests.
Can you show they have more mistakes and tragedies based off English competency?

If not your claim is speculative bullshit

Can you show they don't?

Resorting to abuse simply shows that you are losing the debate.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Can you show they don't?

Resorting to abuse simply shows that you are losing the debate.

Sorry?

What abuse?

Are you saying, that saying something is bullshit is now abuse?

How exactly?

Again the onus is on you on this to show that the level elsewhere is detrimental.

Can you do that Rags?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Sorry?

What abuse?

Are you saying, that saying something is bullshit is now abuse?

How exactly?

Again the onus is on you on this to show that the level elsewhere is detrimental.

Can you do that Rags?

No, it's up to you - you claimed that there wouldn't be a detrimental effect, so prove it.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, it's up to you - you claimed that there wouldn't be a detrimental effect, so prove it.

Epic fail

You and others have made the poorest arguments on this and take for granted the level set here in the Uk as based on anything that has meaning. When it does not. Its based on nothing more than something subjective. Not based on evidence.

We see other countries have this level slightly lower. Which "you" would need to show is dangerous to do so.
You have failed to do so. My evidence comes from the fact these countries operate with a slighter lesser level of competency.

So last chance Rags, show that doing so puts patients lives at risk and i expect to see empirical evidence on this based on stats in the US and Australia

In your own time

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Epic fail

You and others have made the poorest arguments on this and take for granted the level set here in the Uk as based on anything that has meaning. When it does not. Its based on nothing more than something subjective. Not based on evidence.

We see other countries have this level slightly lower. Which "you" would need to show is dangerous to do so.
You have failed to do so. My evidence comes from the fact these countries operate with a slighter lesser level of competency.

So last chance Rags, show that doing so puts patients lives at risk and i expect to see empirical evidence on this based on stats in the US and Australia

In your own time

No, you have made poor arguments. You want to change the standards for no good reason, so this is your last chance to give a good reason why those whose English is not good enough should be able to nurse here, and to back that up properly.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, you have made poor arguments. You want to change the standards for no good reason, so this is your last chance to give a good reason why those whose English is not good enough should be able to nurse here, and to back that up properly.

PMSL, so for no good reason?
When we have a mass shortage or Nurses, many of which would not fail in the US or Australia?

Come again?

I mean explain to me how there English is good enough at 6.0 to study here and not to nurse Rags?

So I ask again

So last chance Rags, show that doing so puts patients lives at risk and i expect to see empirical evidence on this based on stats in the US and Australia

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

PMSL, so for no good reason?
When we have a mass shortage or Nurses, many of which would not fail in the US or Australia?

Come again?

I mean explain to me how there English is good enough at 6.0 to study here and not to nurse Rags?

So I ask again

So last chance Rags, show that doing so puts patients lives at risk and i expect to see empirical evidence on this based on stats in the US and Australia

Having a shortage of nurses is not a good reason to lower standards. Having a surplus of nurses would be no good if they're making errors which could compromise patients' safety. You need to prove that lowering the pass level would not lead to mistakes and misunderstandings.

Last chance to do that before you completely lose the debate. You're the one who wants to change things, so the onus is on you to prove that it should be changed.

Tommy Monk wrote:The bar is set at the level that results in this...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253