-
I realise that. But it's the same shit regurgitated yet again... and it's always nice to say "ac institution says" but there's a person behind that with an idea that stems from their personal "I want to say this to the world"... so it's not like that wasn't written by a pro-Corbynite.
The job is what it is. No-one other than Corbyn supporters care.
Velocio-
I realise that. But it's the same shit regurgitated yet again... and it's always nice to say "ac institution says" but there's a person behind that with an idea that stems from their personal "I want to say this to the world"...
So there is a bias behind the report that says there is bias therefore the report should be dismissed because of the bias rather than the things which the reports says are biased?
it's not like that wasn't written by a pro-Corbynite.
That's not how academia, in my experience, works. And even were it to be the case that the primary was a supporter of Corbyn, the results should be verifiable.
No-one other than Corbyn supporters care.
You're patently wrong. I do think those who actively don't support Corbyn in this case are turning a blind eye, however.
You realize that Corbyn/his supporters had nothing to do with the report, right? It was a study by Birkbeck.