evilharo wrote:
> Any sound advice takes the legal and cultural background of the country into consideration. If you can't even name the country you are in we can do
> nothing more than wishing you the best. Maybe the guys at reddit can give you better advice: https://www.reddit.com/r/Internationalteachers/

Thank you for this @evilharo. I don't want to run foul of the moderators by naming the country, and also want to remain under the radar. Also, people are underestimating the cost. If it were as cheap as they think, I'd simply ask a relative/friend to send the paltry amount and leave. Disclosing the exact amount might A) expose the country and B) make the people here who think I am 'faking' think I am paving the way for solicitation of funds. The one thing you will never see on this thread is me asking for funds. (Come to think of it, if someone is so sleazy as to invent a new user name asking for funds in this matter, let me state categorically for the record, report them to the moderators, do not send them a dime, because that is something I would never do.

The cultural thing I am working on. There is the pull, shall we say, to fix this. It's really just a money squabble among the owners.

Will check out the reddit. Not a member, but at least I can read. I know one person who knew one person who worked at an Embassy, but so far, no luck in contacting that person. No doubt if I were a Kardashian, they'd take steps, but I'm not.

@Heliotrope

According to article 228 of the Russian Criminal code.
http://www.russian-criminal-code.com/Pa ... ter25.html
Part 4 "...or with regard to large amounts of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of seven to fifteen years...."

He got 14 years, a year less than the maximum.
There is no indication of any other category of scale other than "large scale" and "large amount". There is nothing in Article 228 or any other article under chapter 25 (Crimes Against Human Health and Public Morality) indicating a separate level of offense for 100g or more, theres only large and not large. Your definition is neither found nor supported in the data.
By his own admission he was in possession of at LEAST 17g of an illegal drug, almost three times the administrative offense. The Russian court thinks that was a large amount and it was over 6g and Fogel knew what he was doing and that his amount was grossly over the administrative level. Which again, we have ONLY the word of a drug smuggler it wasnt more and didnt exceed this 100g limit, that is absent from the data.
The Russian judiciary hasnt misrepresented the amounts in the Griner and Whelan cases, wheres the pattern of misrepresenting amounts by the Russian authorities to support your claim that they are in the Fogel case?
There isnt its just @Heliotrope thinking some arrogant Americans who think laws dont apply to them and Putin started a war of aggression that everyone gets a pass.

@CeeCee1

One persons suspicion is another persons coincidence.

US citizens tend to be the most arrogant and flagrant in violating drug laws. CANs position and support for Ukraine is no different than the US and CAN has even more relaxed regulation for the possession and use of cannabis. There arent any high profile CAN arrests in Russia.

Why would they show leniency to a drug peddler and user? Her defense was essentially, "I broke your drug laws numerous times in the past so you shouldnt punish me for continuing to break them".

What problems with the search and questioning? This isnt "Law and Order: Russia", if they find you have contraband on you or your possessions, you have contraband in your possession. This is one of the many reasons the US has such problems with drugs, they place too much emphasis on procedure and technicalities instead of facts. If there is an error in the search procedure its not a reason to get away with a crime, its cause for better training while the criminal rots in whatever hole they through them in.

What politics and corruption? According the Washington Post article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... ia-prison/

Fogel was trying to smuggle the drugs in. He hid them poorly in a contact lens case and in his socks. He did that because he knew what he was doing was an offense and the amount he was bringing in placed his actions above the administrative level offense into the serious criminal level offense. His medical need for the illegal drugs was pain but his choice in pain management therapy was that cannabis made him feel good. Thats every drug user ever. Theres no human rights abuse here, he did the crime, he knew it was a crime, and given his history at the IS he knew it was a serious crime, and now he has to do the time.

Cats land on their feet every time except one, the last one.

@SEA_Bound1

What are the values for the tuition/fee waivers/places?

To save USD$50K you need about SGD$70K. Your looking at about SGD$75K for housing, utilities, metro, and phones, and I think thats a bit lite. Another SGD$30K in tax on your salary alone thats SGD$105. That leaves you SGD$25K for the whole year to eat, shop, entertain yourselves and everything else that kids and a family cost thats SGD$2000/mth that might be an okay lifestyle for your family, but you dont know how much the tax on the tuition/fee waivers/places is going to be and SGD$25K is not a lot to play with (thats only USD$1400/mth). You can go to Numbeo and get an idea on costs.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/c ... =Singapore

Looking at the reported cost of an ISs tuition of around SGD$30K/each thats another SGD$9K in taxes out of your SGD$25K/yr bringing it down to SGD$16K/yr or about SGD$1300/mth
Looking at your lifestyle expectations I dont see you banking that your first year, and maybe not your second year either not without making some compromises. You need to find out how much the tuition is and what your tax on it is.

Illiane_Blues wrote:
> Well said Thames Pirate.
>
> Interesting how nathan61 just ignores the valid points made by
> Psychometrika and Heliotrope.

> The effect of the vaccine is NOT 'so small that it has to be magnified by
> the millions to make a difference'.

The vax works and is safe, but my sense is that most people overestimate its effectiveness on an individual level.

The study shows that people who become infected with the Delta variant are less likely to pass the . to their close contacts if they have already had a COVID-19 vaccine than if they haven’t1. But that protective effect is relatively small, and dwindles alarmingly at three months after the receipt of the second shot.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

This article in the Lancet argues that 119 people need to get the Pfizer vaccine in order to prevent one covid case.
ARR is also used to derive an estimate of vaccine effectiveness, which is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one more case of COVID-19 as 1/ARR. NNVs bring a different perspective: 81 for the Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 108 for the Gamaleya, 84 for the J&J, and 119 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanm ... 0/fulltext

nathan61 wrote:
>Even with the Pfizer vaccine, for hospitalization, you get an absolute risk reduction of .84%.
> A pittance. We all take bigger risks living in developing countries.

Absolute risk reduction is a misleading statistic if you don’t understand it properly. A vaccine could have a 100% effectiveness in preventing hospitalization yet still have a low absolute risk reduction. The below article explains in more detail.

Also, it is estimated that herd immunity for covid requires 80-90% immunity rate among the population. So, yes, if you are refusing the vaccine, and are not otherwise immune, you are statistically doing harm by delaying herd immunity.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL2N2NK1XA

Thanks for a level-headed response, sciteach.

There was actually an article published 5 days ago by the Financial Times discussing possible curbs on UK-Centric Bilingual programs, including schools like Harrow's.

https://www.ft.com/content/8bba46b4-16a ... f10e2d16cb

The most alarming passage is as follows:


" The central government in May stopped approving new private schools for the compulsory, or first nine of 12, years of education and last month at least four provinces said there was a goal to cut the proportion of children who attend such schools from more than 10 per cent to less than 5 per cent by the end of the year. "


Right off the bat, however, this is reported as simply a restatement of news that happened months ago, as opposed to something that was announced just this week. The article mentions a lot of remarks from interviews with leadership in a number of British bilingual / international programs, so it does read as a bit of a speculative piece.

I'll also admit that I am more paranoid than most, and it seems like only a couple dozen others across the entire internet have actually sounded the alarm, so to speak, over this news.

Maybe there's too much to keep up with and coverage results in nothing but whiplash for the average news reader.

Maybe ignorance is bliss. I still see hundreds of job openings and advertisements for positions in China (for those in country, anyway) even for sectors that were supposedly stomped on, such as training centers. If it weren't for these kinds of articles, it wouldn't seem like there was a lot to be panicked about.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Illiane_Blues
>
> No its not. The handful of experiences and observations of @Heliotrope
> doesnt make it a lot, nor does it rise to the level of common.
>
> A "known quantity" is one possible goal in recruiting a leader.
> You dont always or even most of the time want a known quantity if you want
> change or something different. Its one avenue if your looking for a
> successor thats going to tow the status quo, which an IS may want, but they
> are just as likely not to want that. Youre also assuming an IT will be the
> same when they advance to leadership, they might but they might not. A
> known quantity may perform very differently under a change in environment.
> Its just your claim that a known quantity is better or advantageous because
> you claim it to be.

Reminds one of Vicky Pollard. Not just the ridiculous non-arguments, but the grammar and vocab too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxCPj40eFNc