We all knew Gove was a chinless cretin, but wow......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2935690/3-500-coasting-schools-turned-academies-war-mediocrity-David-Cameron-remains-power.html.


Up to 3500 schools have deteriorated under Gove's watch. Bit late to sort his mess out, but at least he dopey Dave sacked the chinless wonder before he could do even more damage.

Handy Andy wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2935690/3-500-coasting-schools-turned-academies-war-mediocrity-David-Cameron-remains-power.html.


Up to 3500 schools have deteriorated under Gove's watch. Bit late to sort his mess out, but at least he dopey Dave sacked the chinless wonder before he could do even more damage.

So let's hear once more about how austerity's gonna save the world

Lets get some facts straight here.
These schools were shit in the first place, Labour allowed them to be shit and the Tories rightly have set the right standards.
It will take years to correct this after years of incompetence by Labour. I am just glad now many of these schools have been downgraded and now the right course of action is needed to rectify the mess labour left them in.

fuck me, Bra you are a windbag, aren't you.
Why use 10 words when you can use 10,000.
are you Drinky in disguise?

Handy Andy wrote:fuck me, Bra you are a windbag, aren't you.
Why use 10 words when you can use 10,000.
are you Drinky in disguise?

And you are a left wing twat, hey ho, that does not disprove the fact Labour set poor methods for the Schooling system, which again will take years to resolve.
Are you the reincarnation of Stalin?

The cretinous twonk Gove presided as schools minister for 4 years before Ca Moron awoke to the fact the rest of the world knew that Gove was an incompetent and idiotic minister and sacked him.
During his tenure, more schools deteriorated than improved.
That happens with the tories every time.
Unfortunately, privatising them for profiteering shareholders wont wash with the everyday voting public.

Handy Andy wrote:The cretinous twonk Gove presided as schools minister for 4 years  before  Ca Moron awoke to the fact the rest of the world knew that Gove was an incompetent and idiotic minister and sacked him.
During his tenure, more schools deteriorated than improved.
That happens with the tories every time.
Unfortunately, privatising them for profiteering shareholders wont wash with the everyday voting public.

Again they already were poor, which is the point and were allowed for so long to be in such a poor state of quality. Thank goodness the standards are now set to what they should have been. The worst part about this is how for years a generation of children have been let down by labour on the poor quality standards they set.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2935690/3-500-coasting-schools-turned-academies-war-mediocrity-David-Cameron-remains-power.html.


Up to 3500 schools have deteriorated under Gove's watch. Bit late to sort his mess out, but at least he dopey Dave sacked the chinless wonder before he could do even more damage.

So let's hear once more about how austerity's gonna save the world

Austerity is the way that conservatives pay for the wars they cause.  As soon as austerity brings down the debt, they are arguing: “deficits don’t matter”...we should attack ISIL!

There's nothing wrong with British schools.  The way to accomplish restructuring of any disfavored institution is to say it is old and dilapidated and you are going to rebuild it with bells and whistles.  Then proceed to dismantle it or change it to your liking.

When the Tories are critical of the schools, they don't mean bricks and mortar.  They mean they will change the curricula...you know, more Tory propaganda:

Daily Mail wrote:The Tories also plan to raise standards by making all schoolchildren in England learn their times tables by heart as well as carry out long division and complex multiplication by the age of 11. They will also have to be able to read a novel and write a short story.

Read as: no more innovative or experimental programs, and forget stimulating courses that teach students to think for themselves.  We want pod people, who are ripe to becomes robots for the industrial-military machine: rote memorization, elementary arithmetic (long division), minimal cursory reading (Ayn Rand) and report writing (Production Statistics for the Year-End: 2014).

Brasidas wrote:Lets get some facts straight here.
These schools were shit in the first place, Labour allowed them to be shit and the Tories rightly have set the right standards.
It will take years to correct this after years of incompetence by Labour. I am just glad now many of these schools have been downgraded and now the right course of action is needed to rectify the mess labour left them in.

Yes, let's get some facts straight because it would appear that your knowledge on education under Labour needs to be updated. Let me show you why;

Statement by Michael Gove June 2012 Secretary of State for Education

“It is important to recognise that it is not just grade inflation that is responsible for improvements in our schools. I do believe that our schools have got better, incrementally in some case, quickly in others, over the course of the last 15 years.”

As 13 of these years were under Labour and the statement comes from the education secretary then people can hardly say that education under labour was shit.

Institute of Fiscal Studies Election Briefing 2010 12

National school results in England have improved under Labour across all age groups. However, these improvements have not been as fast as the government hoped, with numerous national targets being set and subsequently missed. On average, English school results at ages 9-10 and 13-14 appear to be well above the Western European average for Mathematics and Science (using TIMSS data), but England’s 15 year olds score around the OECD average for both reading and Mathematics (using PISA data).

UK Office of National Statistics Letter giving the government a kick up the arse for publishing statistics that are completely misleading.

http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence/letter-from-andrew-dilnot-to-rt--hon--david-miliband-mp---03102012.pdf

FactCheck.

But it’s misleading to draw from this that we have fallen behind other countries in recent years as the data is not only incomplete but the sample has increased so it’s not comparing like with like.
And given that the OECD themselves say the data cannot be used as an educational league table FactCheck feels it cannot give Mr. Gove a fact rating on this claim.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/britain-falling-down-the-world-school-league-tables/2148

The Timms Report – you should read it. Very informative.

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/TMO01/TIMSS2007Chapter1.pdf

Yes lets look at the facts Jock

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/13/schools.newschools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2585036/Two-million-pupils-failing-GCSEs-under-Labour.html


Oh dear

Brasidas wrote:Yes lets look at the facts Jock

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/13/schools.newschools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2585036/Two-million-pupils-failing-GCSEs-under-Labour.html


Oh dear

The Guardian article questioning why the schools aren't doing better in line with the spending rather than claiming they are getting worse.

The Telegraph one is an analysis by the Conservatives lol

So is Handy Andy correct then and Michael Gove is wrong in saying that they got better and therefore a chinless wonder?

Gove was the Tory education secretary before Cameron sacked him lol

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Yes lets look at the facts Jock

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/13/schools.newschools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2585036/Two-million-pupils-failing-GCSEs-under-Labour.html


Oh dear

The Guardian article questioning why the schools aren't doing better in line with the spending rather than claiming they are getting worse.

The Telegraph one is an analysis by the Conservatives lol

So is Handy Andy correct then and Michael Gove is wrong in saying that they got better and therefore a chinless wonder?

Gove was the Tory education secretary before Cameron sacked him lol

Starting to sink in, much money was pumped in and as seen Labour was not delivering mainly because of its weak policies within schools which has left them in the poor stated that they are in tolday.

Oh so one is okay because iots the Guardian butr not the telegraph, is your bases to dismiss an article.

One moment

::::rotgdflmmfa

He did fine, it was Muslimophobia that played a hand in him being moved on which of course goes above your pay grade Jock

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Yes lets look at the facts Jock

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/13/schools.newschools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2585036/Two-million-pupils-failing-GCSEs-under-Labour.html


Oh dear

The Guardian article questioning why the schools aren't doing better in line with the spending rather than claiming they are getting worse.

The Telegraph one is an analysis by the Conservatives lol

So is Handy Andy correct then and Michael Gove is wrong in saying that they got better and therefore a chinless wonder?

Gove was the Tory education secretary before Cameron sacked him lol

Starting to sink in, much money was pumped in and as seen Labour was not delivering mainly because of its weak policies within schools which has left them in the poor stated that they are in tolday.

Oh so one is okay because iots the Guardian butr not the telegraph, is your bases to dismiss an article.

One moment

::::rotgdflmmfa

He did fine, it was Muslimophobia that played a hand in him being moved on which of course goes above your pay grade Jock

So they didn't get worse, they just didn't get better in line with the targets set by Labour. That' s what I highlighted in the first place.

You really need to look more closely at what you are replying to.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Starting to sink in, much money was pumped in and as seen Labour was not delivering mainly because of its weak policies within schools which has left them in the poor stated that they are in tolday.

Oh so one is okay because iots the Guardian butr not the telegraph, is your bases to dismiss an article.

One moment

::::rotgdflmmfa

He did fine, it was Muslimophobia that played a hand in him being moved on which of course goes above your pay grade Jock

So they didn't get worse, they just didn't get better in line with the targets set by Labour. That' s what I highlighted in the first place.

You really need to look more closely at what you are replying to.

The problem was the targets set by labour they were of poor standing.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Starting to sink in, much money was pumped in and as seen Labour was not delivering mainly because of its weak policies within schools which has left them in the poor stated that they are in tolday.

Oh so one is okay because iots the Guardian butr not the telegraph, is your bases to dismiss an article.

One moment

::::rotgdflmmfa

He did fine, it was Muslimophobia that played a hand in him being moved on which of course goes above your pay grade Jock

So they didn't get worse, they just didn't get better in line with the targets set by Labour. That' s what I highlighted in the first place.

You really need to look more closely at what you are replying to.

The problem was the targets set by labour they were of poor standing.

Were they? Show me the targets set then/

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

The problem was the targets set by labour they were of poor standing.

Were they? Show me the targets set then/

Sorry I meant standards set by labour, they were shit as they always are based on being wet.

The actual policies can be found http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/wp03.pdf

53 pages of interesting reading

Labour left office with critics on both left and right advocating different kinds of policies to achieve greater change: from the left calls for a withdrawal from high-stakes testing and market principles; from the right calls for greater curriculum rigour and less central direction in delivery.

The Coalition inherited a stronger system which to deal with which to tackle its educational priorities,

risingsun wrote:

The Coalition inherited a stronger system which to deal with which to tackle its educational priorities,

Hardly stronger when its standards are all set wrong and as seen we are seeing the fallout from this.

Brasidas wrote:Labour left office with critics on both left and right advocating different kinds of policies to achieve greater change: from the left calls for a withdrawal from high-stakes testing and market principles; from the right calls for greater curriculum rigour and less central direction in delivery.

Oh christ you got that off the internet - not your own words. What's that called again?

Brasidas wrote:

risingsun wrote:

The Coalition inherited a stronger system which to deal with which to tackle its educational priorities,

Hardly stronger when its standards are all set wrong and as seen we are seeing the fallout from this.

The quote was from the conclusion at the end of the link I gave you by people who had studied it in great detail. All the graphs on the study were going upwards.

risingsun wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Hardly stronger when its standards are all set wrong and as seen we are seeing the fallout from this.

The quote was from the conclusion at the end of the link I gave you by people who had studied it in great detail.  All the graphs on the study were going upwards.

Yes some people who have studied, does that mean they are correct?

Of course not, hence the jury is still out.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Labour left office with critics on both left and right advocating different kinds of policies to achieve greater change: from the left calls for a withdrawal from high-stakes testing and market principles; from the right calls for greater curriculum rigour and less central direction in delivery.

Oh christ you got that off the internet - not your own words. What's that called again?

Never claimed it was my words, is this all you have after I have embarressed you on your poor thread about Thatcher jock?

Ha ha ha ha

Mate you need to pick up your dummies, I cannot move around the forum there are so many you have spat out

Brasidas wrote:

risingsun wrote:

The quote was from the conclusion at the end of the link I gave you by people who had studied it in great detail.  All the graphs on the study were going upwards.

Yes some people who have studied, does that mean they are correct?

Of course not, hence the jury is still out.

London School of Economics and Political Science.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Labour left office with critics on both left and right advocating different kinds of policies to achieve greater change: from the left calls for a withdrawal from high-stakes testing and market principles; from the right calls for greater curriculum rigour and less central direction in delivery.

Oh christ you got that off the internet - not your own words. What's that called again?

Never claimed it was my words, is this all you have after I have embarressed you on your poor thread about Thatcher jock?

Ha ha ha ha

Mate you need to pick up your dummies, I cannot move around the forum there are so many you have spat out

If the words are not yours you should always attribute the source. Basic rules really.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Never claimed it was my words, is this all you have after I have embarressed you on your poor thread about Thatcher jock?

Ha ha ha ha

Mate you need to pick up your dummies, I cannot move around the forum there are so many you have spat out

If the words are not yours you should always attribute the source. Basic rules really.

I really am not going to lose any sleep over what you think.
See ya little one

risingsun wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Yes some people who have studied, does that mean they are correct?

Of course not, hence the jury is still out.

London School of Economics and Political Science.  

Whoop dee doo, what does that mean?

the education system in britain has been screwed since 1970's

labour knacker the curriculum
tories knacker the infrastructure and teacher pupil ratio
and the bloody libralists get their oar in with idiotic teacher "ideals"



there is NOTHING wrong, in fact it is highly desirable that kids learn "times tables" by rote, along with all the other essential "number bonds" (like common square roots and squares) and YES even, dare i say it the use of the old fashioned "log tables"

why.....

because there is a huge (i would say majority) of young folks out there that can hardly tally a 5 item shopping bill in their heads....they have to get out their smart phone with its calculator....

they cant work out in their heads a simple problem like having a vehicle with Km per hour display how fast they are going in MPH
they cant work out in their heads simple degrees Farenheit to centigrade...

in fact ...they cant do ANY mental arithmetic

as for the rest

they leave school ...knowing less about more unnecessary crap than my generation did

example....and A level student studying chemistry, Knows precious little more that I did....when iI left school with the old "O" level......the depth of knowlege has been lost and left to the UNI's to make up the gap...

I could rant on this for ages...

I mean what is this lefty liberal notion that kids shouldnt be allowed to fail....which resulted in a lot of schools abandoning competative sports FGS?

and basically the SAME reasoning was applied to educational standards...so we hade the introduction of "GCSE's" to replace the old "GCE" exams...the idea being that no one could actually "fail" you would get a grade (in GCSE) if you just turned up and put your name on the paper....you COULD and some DID "fail" an O level...

this is why the problem above, of the kids knowing less arises.......


@ Quill...the situation you describe of "consumer robots" has been brought about by ALL parties involved
but especially by the liberalists...who would brook no argument....or elections or ANY sort of independant thought...
worse by far than tye L/W or R/W who at least are only in it for the money.....

Agree with you 100%.

darknessss wrote:I mean what is this lefty liberal notion that kids shouldnt be allowed to fail....which resulted in a lot of schools abandoning competative sports FGS?

and basically the SAME reasoning was applied to educational standards...so we hade the introduction of "GCSE's" to replace the old "GCE" exams...the idea being that no one could actually "fail" you would get a grade (in GCSE) if you just turned up and put your name on the paper....you COULD and some DID "fail" an O level...

this is why the problem above, of the kids knowing less arises.......

At the bottom of all conservative philosophies is the notion of losers.  Conservatives see life in terms of zero-sum reward and punishment.  That’s why sports are such an important metaphor for conservatives.

Fittingly, they need a fair share of failures to vindicate their bilateral win-loss view.  It’s not fathomable to them that education could conceivably be a situation in which everyone benefits.  Perish the thought.

This is part and parcel of the negative view of the world, probably born of the biblical view of a ‘winner-loser’ world.  There are the ‘chosen ones’, and then there are the losers.  In early America, this took the form of predestination—the notion that one was born chosen, and our deeds in the world only served to confirm (not make) a foregone conclusion.  The Koch brothers love this one.

Modernly, we see this same dialectic in fields like business and education.  Why can’t everyone win?  Because the model says there must be some losers in order for there to be winners.  We need losers, in other words, to allow the relatively more well off to gloat.

If we simply disavowed the model we could indeed have a homogenized distribution of whatever is at hand…wealth or education, whatever.  But it scares conservatives (conservative = to conserve = cling to the old and outmoded) when it comes to changing the template.   If all it amounts to is a new iphone, well alright.  But if it requires some imagination and intelligence, conservatives are against it.

Which is why conservatives should never be left alone in the playroom.  Because they can't think on their feet, they couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag.

some times quill you talk a load of cobblers ......

of course there are winners and losers...it has to be....

either that OR we just sit in cotton wool balls and do nothing...


so...you suggest we should abandon sport then...thats healthy

you suggest perhaps we should abandon educational competativness....
and let the dumb fucks of the world carry out delicate complex operations ...or build space ships??

or at least pay the toilet cleaner the same as ths surgeon???

hells bell I know america proves this doesnt work...every day.....
it allows the dumb fucks to become the ruling elite....
at least OUR govt is comprised of smart alecs...malicious greedy self seeking smart alecs admittedly.....but....


the lefty liberalist mantra again...the race to the bottom for the lowest common denominator.....

tell me quill.....why bother educating AT ALL???

surely if you want equality....since you CANT elevate the moron to the level of the genius, then it must be mandatory NOT to elevate the genius in the first place????

At least you have reasonably fixed one theory for me...early cave men MUST have been lefty liberalists.....
which is why it took them so many 10's of thousands of years to develop...............

this is why leftys and liberalists should never be left in the play room....
they would take away all the toys so everyone can sit equally in a corner facing the wall and vegetating.....come to that they would probably make the play room circular...so no one could claim a corner just in case facing a corner was seen as "better" than facing a wall...

darknessss wrote:@ Quill...the situation you describe of "consumer robots" has been brought about by ALL parties involved
but especially by the liberalists...who would brook no argument....or elections or ANY sort of independant thought...
worse by far than tye L/W or R/W who at least are only in it for the money.....

I think it goes much deeper than that.  The conservative view of the world and life is “nasty, brutish and short" as Thomas Hobbes said.  Therefore, under the conservative view everything must be geared toward survival.  This includes education…the purpose of education is to learn to make a living, no more according to the conservative.  Hence, the emphasis on mundane ideas and repetitive reading, writing and arithmetic.

But education by repetition is the antithesis of learning to think. Originally, education was so much more than the mundane.  Rather than a school of ordinary thoughts, education was a means of pressing the envelope on ideas…thinking outside the ordinary.  In the ultimate, that is what liberal means: freedom of thought and idea.

The conservative wants to constrain—the negative view of man means man must be held back, and indeed that’s what laws are about—but also constrained to the present, to live in a world of only incremental joy and dreary toil.  To conserve means to tie yourself to an incremental, day-to-day view of the world.  But to constrain man is to constrain our ability to survive as well.  

The world is not always incremental; it can be catastrophic in the extreme.  We need heroes and supermen to help us when the next asteroid strikes or volcano erupts.  We needed them during the Cold War, when nuclear war was just around the corner.  We needed them to discover the double helix and map the genomic world.  That’s what the idea of education—the idea developed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle—was aimed at.  That spirit was lost in the Dark Ages, with the Christian Church dissuading learning, and that spirit is threatened today by the same conservative forces.

darknessss wrote:some times quill you talk a load of cobblers ......

of course there are winners and losers...it has to be....

either that OR we just sit in cotton wool balls and do nothing...


so...you suggest we should abandon sport then...thats healthy

you suggest perhaps we should abandon educational competativness....
and let the dumb fucks of the world carry out delicate complex operations ...or build space ships??

or at least pay the toilet cleaner the same as ths surgeon???

hells bell I know america proves this doesnt work...every day.....
it allows the dumb fucks to become the ruling elite....
at least OUR govt is comprised of smart alecs...malicious greedy self seeking smart alecs admittedly.....but....


the lefty liberalist mantra again...the race to the bottom for the lowest common denominator.....

tell me quill.....why bother educating AT ALL???

surely if you want equality....since you CANT elevate the moron to the level of the genius, then it must be mandatory NOT to elevate the genius in the first place????

At least you have reasonably fixed one theory for me...early cave men MUST have been lefty liberalists.....
which is why it took them so many 10's of thousands of years to develop...............

this is why leftys and liberalists should never be left in the play room....
they would take away all the toys so everyone can sit equally in a corner facing the wall and vegetating.....come to that they would probably make the play room circular...so no one could claim a corner just in case facing a corner was seen as "better" than facing a wall...

Do you see how you structure the world?  Do you see the hierarchical nature of your vision?  Do you see how it immediately puts man on a destructive course of competition?  Whereas, men working in concert could do so much more.

Competition is healthy, no doubt...but within limits.  Competition in sports is held within the rule...rules governed by working in concert...not by mere laws, which are artificial constraints. But by the spirit of a common good...a common goal.  To build a foundational ideology built upon the destruction of works, rather than the building of works...that's the exact opposite of win-win...that's lose-lose.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Never claimed it was my words, is this all you have after I have embarressed you on your poor thread about Thatcher jock?

Ha ha ha ha

Mate you need to pick up your dummies, I cannot move around the forum there are so many you have spat out

If the words are not yours you should always attribute the source. Basic rules really.

I really am not going to lose any sleep over what you think.
See ya little one

I'm sure you won't as your visits throughout the night seem to show that you don't sleep much anyway.

Dangerous thing sleep deprivation Didge, can cause long term problems I believe. Scary stuff

So what's the final call on this? Is Handy Andy right that Gove is a chinless wonder or is Gove right and that education in the previous 15 years had improved under Labour as supported by the IFS and the TIMMS report?

I average around 4 hours always have.
Never needed much sleep Irn, thanks anyway, feel the better for it also.

Brasidas wrote:I average around 4 hours always have.
Never needed much sleep Irn, thanks anyway, feel the better for it also.

Is that twice a day then?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I average around 4 hours always have.
Never needed much sleep Irn, thanks anyway, feel the better for it also.

Is that twice a day then?

If I do not need much sleep and only four hours how can that be twice a day.

DOH

Should I have responded in Gaelic for you?

do you also sleep hanging from the ceiling didge???

darknessss wrote:do you also sleep hanging from the ceiling didge???

Slept in a hammock a few times whilst traveling, does that count?

well i just wondered....you always did appear a bit "batty"

darknessss wrote:well i just wondered....you always did appear a bit "batty"

Maybe I am Batman

hmmm....more like

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I average around 4 hours always have.
Never needed much sleep Irn, thanks anyway, feel the better for it also.

Is that twice a day then?

If I do not need much sleep and only four hours how can that be twice a day.

DOH

Should I have responded in Gaelic for you?

Easy. Over a 24 hour cycle 2 x 4 = 8 meaning 8 hours sleep. Basic arithmetic really but you have clarrified now that you may actually suffer from Insomnia.

Go on then, reply in Gaelic

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


If I do not need much sleep and only four hours how can that be twice a day.

DOH

Should I have responded in Gaelic for you?

Easy. Over a 24 hour cycle 2 x 4 = 8 meaning 8 hours sleep. Basic arithmetic really but you have clarrified now that you may actually suffer from Insomnia.

Go on then, reply in Gaelic

I sleep only 4 hours ha ha ha


think you need to go to school and do your maths again, it is as bad as your history it seems.
Left wing indoctrination work on your history and your maths it seems also

Sleep Loss May Cause Brain Damage and Accelerate Onset of Alzheimer’s, Two New Studies Show

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/04/03/sleep-loss-alzheimers-disease.aspx

risingsun wrote:Sleep Loss May Cause Brain Damage and Accelerate Onset of Alzheimer’s, Two New Studies Show

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/04/03/sleep-loss-alzheimers-disease.aspx

Thanks for sharing Stassi


As seen though I can wipe the floor with lefties, so the brain is clearly working fine, I guess this study must refer to lefties

You're Romeo from the other place aren't you, he's the only one that stupid and up himself.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


If I do not need much sleep and only four hours how can that be twice a day.

DOH

Should I have responded in Gaelic for you?

Easy. Over a 24 hour cycle 2 x 4 = 8 meaning 8 hours sleep. Basic arithmetic really but you have clarrified now that you may actually suffer from Insomnia.

Go on then, reply in Gaelic

I sleep only 4 hours ha ha ha


think you need to go to school and do your maths again, it is as bad as your history it seems.
Left wing indoctrination work on your history and your maths it seems also

You said you only need 4 hours sleep but you didn't say that's all you needed over a 24 hour cycle. That's a very worrying sleep pattern and I'd see about that.