Teachers for Supply

Two inept thieves who stole Chinese artefacts worth £2m from a museum but then couldn’t find where that they had stashed them were handed lengthy jail sentences and told the true value in their haul was “immeasurable”.

Lee Wildman, 36, was jailed for nine years and Adrian Stanton, 33, was handed an eight-year term for planning and accomplishing a raid at Durham University’s Oriental Museum at Easter.

They had planned the break-in well, choosing the night before Good Friday when the campus was quiet, using cloned number plates and chiselling a hole through a brick wall to get out and in quickly.

From the display cabinets, they picked out just two items – a 1769 jade bowl and a porcelain figurine – worth as much as £2m, Judge Christopher Prince told them. But their plan was flawed because after hiding the items on wasteland, Wildman couldn’t find them when he returned two days later.

He was seen by a witness searching the plot, speaking in an agitated manner on his mobile, because the light faded.

1769 jade bowl. Photograph: Durham University/PA

Judge Prince told the defendants that they had shown “crass ineptitude” in being unable to seek out their haul. “Thank heavens you couldn’t, because they might were lost,” he said.

Just weeks before, the pair from Walsall had received suspended sentences for an evening-time break-in at an amusement arcade in Rhyl, where they cut a hole in a roof and broke into slot machines. On that occasion police stopped their car at the as far back as the Midlands, and located greater than £10,000 in coins.

That was of their minds once they decided to conceal the Chinese artefacts and collect them later, the judge said.

Both men had shown no remorse and had told “transparent” lies during a two-day hearing at Durham crown court through which they tried to minimize their roles within the burglary, the judge said.

It was hard to place a cost at the items, he said, adding: “The financial value of artefacts reminiscent of these could be the very least important factor. This stuff have gotten a historical, cultural and inventive value that’s with no trouble immeasurable.

“Their loss has had probably the most enormous detrimental effect at the university, both in expenditure they’ve needed to make in improving their security and within the lack of potential confidence from benefactors.”

The items were found after a fingertip search of the wasteland after a witness who read one of the vital widespread publicity in regards to the case realised she had seen Wildman within the area.

Four others who helped the offenders while they tried to cover from police might be sentenced later.

A week before the break-in, Wildman and Stanton were caught at the museum’s CCTV, testing security during a trip within opening hours. When Wildman was shown the footage later, he told detectives: “It is not a criminal offense to go to a museum.”

Both men were to be paid a “fixed reward” for stealing the items, which was nothing like their real market value, Ben Williams, defending both men, said.

The pair have lengthy criminal records stretching to after they were juveniles, the court heard.

When Wildman and Stanton were arrested with their girlfriends and an accomplice at a Walsall hotel, Wildman was found to have £5,746 in cash and Stanton £4,930.

Peter Makepeace, prosecuting, praised the media for publicising the theft, which brought about a flurry of important information from the general public.

“It’s right to assert that local press coverage specifically was very useful because witnesses were in a position to make identifications from photographs that were published,” he said, adding that the raiders were not really acting alone and were conducting the thefts “to reserve”.

Whenever I speak in support of Israel or in criticism of its enemies, the dogs of defamation are unleashed against me. The attacks, all from the hard left, seemed coordinated, concentrating on common ad hominem themes. They accuse me of being a plagiarist, a supporter of torture, a rightwing “Zio-fascist”, a hypocrite, an opponent of both-state solution and a supporter of Israel’s settlement policies. Some of these allegations are demonstrably false, but this doesn’t appear to matter to these whose job it’s to aim to discredit me.

Let me begin with the charge of plagiarism – a charge originally made by the educational Norman Finkelstein. In my case, the charge centered around a one-paragraph quotation from Mark Twain in my book The Case for Israel. I cited the paragraph to Mark Twain, but Finkelstein said that I have to have cited it to a writer named Joan Peters, because he believes i discovered the quote in her book.

The truth is that i discovered the quote ten years sooner than the publication of Peters’ book and used it repeatedly in debates and speeches. When Finkelstein leveled his absurd charge, I immediately reported it to the Harvard University president and to the dean of the law school and ask that or not it’s thoroughly investigated. Harvard appointed its former president, Derek Bok, to analyze the charge. After an intensive investigation, he found it to be utterly frivolous. But to the dogs of defamation, this only goes to prove that Harvard should be a part of the professional-Israel conspiracy.

The second charge is that i’m pro-torture, despite my repeated categorical statements in my writings that i am against all torture under all circumstances. I do believe that torture could be used, not must be used, within the event we ever experience a ticking bomb situation. Accordingly, I actually have suggested that no torture should ever be permitted with out a court approved warrant, of the kind the ACLU has demanded in targeted killing cases.

But to the dogs of defamation, this distinction is irrelevant. Because i’m pro-Israel, i need to be pro-torture. Here’s particularly ironic, since both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas routinely torture dissidents, without their leaders being called pro-torture by a similar hard-left defamers who falsely accuse me.

The latest unleashing of the dogs of defamation was stimulated by the location I took on a BDS conference at Brooklyn College. Although I support the conference going forward, and oppose any try to censor it, I raise troubling questions on whether the Brooklyn College political science department needs to be sponsoring and endorsing that advocacy event, in the event that they doesn’t be willing to sponsor and endorse an anti-BDS event by an equally radical anti-Palestinian rightwing group.

My position, needless to say, have been distorted, and i’ve been lumped with folks that would censor the development. i’ve been called a hypocrite because, apparently, the political science department at UPENN once co-sponsored an anti-BDS speech I gave there, notwithstanding i used to be totally blind to this sponsorship and would has been opposed if I’d known about it. i used to be informed, and believed previously, that the development were sponsored by Hillel and the Jewish Federation.

Along a similar lines, two members of the political science department at Brooklyn College have claimed that my speeches there have been sponsored by the dept and were as controversial because the BDS advocacy event. That may be totally false. As far as i will remember, I actually have made three speeches at Brooklyn College: one, the Konefsky lecture within the late 1960s or early 1970s, which was a purely academic lecture specializing in the work of Professor Samuel Konefsky; there has been nothing controversial about it. Second, a speech i used to be invited to provide once I donated my papers to Brooklyn College: again, not very controversial. And third, a chat I gave in 2008 about my teachers at Brooklyn College and a few letter by Thomas Jefferson I had present in a book store (this may be heard online): again, not particularly controversial.

Why, then, is there this sort of concerted effort to attack me personally and to query my integrity at any time when I discuss Israel

It has little to do with me, because my attackers know that i’m able to fight back and that my academic standing cannot in any respect be influenced by their attacks. The attacks are directed at young academics, without tenure who would dare to talk up on behalf of Israel.

The message is evident: in the event you support Israel, we can attack you love we attack Dershowitz, but you may be hurt far more that Dershowitz would. We’re going to damage your reputation, hurt your student evaluations and reduce your chances for tenure.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that such a lot of pro-Israel young academics refuse to talk up. i do know because they call and discreetly tell me concerning the fear they’ve that they are going to be subjected to a similar type of McCarthyite tactics that i’m subjected to.

That is why i’m able to continue to fight back and respond whenever the dogs of defamation are unleashed against me.

• Comments in this article can be open for twenty-four hours and might be closed overnight

Around 40-60 students have occupied a conference centre and top floor of a college of Sussex building as “a final recourse” to avoid the privatisation of campus services.

The occupation follows an indication on Thursday when 300 staff and scholars marched through campus to oppose the outsourcing of catering and estate management services at Sussex.

At the tip of the protest, a bunch of 40 students occupied portion of Bramber House, where an external event was occurring.

A further 20 students joined the occupation over night, in keeping with a Sussex Against Privatisation spokesperson, despite the presence of university and personal security staff.

The university provoked anger when it announced in May that it was to dump some campus services, meaning 235 workers might be transferred to non-public companies from August 2013.

Since then it has held meetings with trade unions, staff and scholars but pressed ahead with the bidding process to locate a non-public partner. Sussex Against Privatisation says the opposition to outsourcing services is powerful and that its actions are a “last recourse… in an effort to guarantee that student and staff voices are heard”.

“We had a big rally yesterday and a solidarity demo this afternoon. But these events aren’t only a one-off, there’ve been boycotts and petitions held all year long towards the university’s plans.

“While privatisation may have an impact on students’ lives when it comes to the standard of services, our first concern is the impact this could have on staff – it’s their job security which will be put in peril.”

John Duffy, University of Sussex registrar, says there’ll be no redundancies as portion of the outsourcing, and that staff’s terms and prerequisites will remain the similar.

“This can be a long-term strategic development by the university to make sure that we will be able to enhance and develop the high-quality services we offer to our students and staff as we grow, with student numbers increasing from fewer than 11,000 in 2008 to a projected 18,000 by 2018.”

“As we wade through the [bidding] process, we’re providing information and support to these staff who can be transferring to external partners. We also continue to fulfill and discuss our plans with the 3 campus trade unions. We’re keeping other staff and scholars informed in regards to the process.”

But Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion, says the university has didn’t consult staff and scholars.

“It’s deeply concerning that the call to outsource university services have been made with so little transparency or consultation- making it impossible to understand whether these plans are either sustainable or budget friendly for money.

“I’ve raised these fears with the management and am still anticipating a solution as to why it refused to think of any in-house service improvement plan, instead presenting ‘doing nothing’ because the only alternative to outsourcing.

“The university now has an obligation to hear the troubles of staff, lots of whom feel anxious about their futures, trade union representatives and scholars who’re today challenging the privatisation agenda in education.”

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and faculty Union, has expressed her support for the occupation: “The university administration is making an attempt to unilaterally drive through a deeply unpopular and flawed reform, without proper consultation or assessment of other solutions.

“We stand with our members of their struggle to safeguard the working conditions of staff at Sussex and to uphold the speculation of a public university.”

In an try to be sure that her pupils don’t face disadvantages in later life, the top of a Teesside primary has asked parents to correct children’s local accents and grammar. Here a number one children’s author from the north-east responds.

Wen A woz a littl lad me parints yoosed te tell iz to taalk propa. The teechas did an aal.

It’s yes not aye, it’s child not bairn, it’s nothing not nowt.

It is i am going home and never Am gannin yem.

It’s not howay it’s come along.

We wer telt it woz aalreet to maintain sum of the acsent, of cors, cos it woz probly impossibil to do away with it aal. But ther woz sum that sed that the acsent should be purjed, lyk the sownd of it was a sine of sin. We did begin to taalk what they caaled propa, of cors. Nee surprize in that. We wer bairns. We wer gud at lernin. And tho it sumtyms mayd us cross we didn’t reely mind. The parints and the teechas was thinkin of our fuchers as they should.

Sum people chaynjd and neva lookd bak. Sum began to sownd lyk they cum from Surry or sumwer and never from the banks of the Tyne. But uthas folks cudnt leev the words and sownds behind. We didn’t wont to loos the feelin that they brung of wyldnis and transgreshon. The trooth is it woz luvly to assert the words that woz forbid. It woz luvly to run oot into the yard or into the playin feelds and as much as the wildaness abuv the toon and yell oot:

Am ganna ploat ye, ye littl bugga!

On me heed! On me heed!

Hadaway and shite!

And it woz luvly to tendaly wispa the words to eech utha.

They say he winnit mek it throo the neet.

Oh, examine that canny bint

Now Am a rita and A rite books that teechas reed to bairns in skools and the books is filld with words like spuggy and clarts and aye and nowt. Aav rit won book that’s aal misspelt and aal rit within the langwij of the Tyne. It’s telt by a lad that cannit spell but he trys to do the highest he can and he trys to make the langwij make sum sens, as bairns do, and he trys to make it sing, as evry rita must.

Langwij has to ecko at the air and it has to dyve doon to the hart an sole. The rite langwij could be the rang langwij for sum books. Sum ov the grate books of the area is rit qwite rong. Books by them lyk Billy Forkna, Russil Hoban, Jimmy Joyce. And the rong words is wot the aynshent tales were telt in, and the way aal the songs woz sung.

Aye, ye hav to knaa the words the realm thinks is rite and ye must knaa the best way to spel them rite an speek them rite. Othawize sum misgiyded folk mite think yor only a dope.

But ye neva hav to place the otha words away. Yev got to yoos them and speek them and rite them and keep them on the earth. Aav gorra digree in English, Am a rita, and these daze Am even a professa so Aav lernd sumthin abowt the right way to diy things rite. But thers still nee thrill lyk the joys of knowing wot the so-caaled rite word is and the way to rite it rite, but still to yoos the word the realm considas rong. Nee thrill at aal like ritin aye, bairn, clarts, spuggy, hadaway and nowt. Thas nae thrill lyk the fun of speakin the words, feelin the vybrashon of the sownds they make, feelin them dancin on yor lips and tung and breth.

Reed them now and speek them now and feel the luvliness that’s in them. Aye, bairn, clarts, spuggy, hadaway and nowt. Its lyk gannin yem, like gannin back to bein a bairn agen, like reechin back to where the langwij cums from. The words cum up from the blood and boans an from the grownd itself and the aynshent past and from the commin langwij, the langwij that must neva eva eva be forgot.

Today, Michael Gove announced he was creating a U-switch on plans to abolish GCSEs. The reaction on social media have been a mix of relief, joy and mocking anger on the education secretary, who has infuriated many teachers together with his recent reforms that come with scrapping AS-levels. Here is a rundown of the controversy on Twitter:

[View the tale “Gove GCSE U-turn: teachers’ reaction on Twitter” on Storify]

This content is dropped at you by Guardian Professional. To get articles direct for your inbox, and to access thousands of free resources, check in to the Guardian Teacher Network here. Seeking your next role See our Guardian jobs for schools site for thousands of the most recent teaching, leadership and support jobs