Brew

That's true in my case Ben but my mam was in floods of tears after reading the demands from Mundella and after much argument with my parents I chose not to go.

And if Labour did not have a socialist, almost puritanical one size fits all policy of making everyone fit the same mould, of levelling the playing field by banning grammar schools on the basis of equal opportunity, things may well have turned out differently. But you quite happily say some are more able academically i.e. we are not equal. You seem to dislike fee paying schools yet you enjoyed a school where parents had to pay considerably more that those of the secondaries. The principle is the same, only the amount varies and it gave you access to a 'win'

We know what 'woke' was just as we once knew what 'queer' and 'gay' meant. We have to accept that they now have meaning and connotations entirely different to their origin. It grates on me when i hear them and refuse to use them any way other than in the proper manner; the same way I refuse to acknowledge or use gender neutral pronouns. But then again I'm just a dinosaur who never really learned not to pee into the wind.

I'm not attacking anything I'm merely pointing out that it seems incongruous that you think the private sector are somehow different to the grammar stream in terms of education or status. Nor do I accept criticism of independent schools. As someone who has gone trough the somewhat esoteric route of grammar, uni and career. You above all of us are in a better position to judge yet I rather think your political persuasions will not let you see the value of private schools. The left has always frowned on them and even started to dismantle grammar schools in 1965 and in 1998 banned them

All very nice and liberal I'm sure but a fail is a fail. You can't un-fail it and whilst people will happily confess to being a grammar school pupil or declare their degree, few will volunteer a failure of anything without a tinge of regret.

Not really what I said though the post was possibly poorly worded. The discussion morphed into you alluding that privately educated individuals are perceived by others as better somehow. I said the same applies to Grammar schools and though it my be true that some think it, they really aren't no matter how many times they mention it. Paying for school does not make anyone better educated nor do grammar schools. Failure to fund good enough 'Secondary Modern' educational facilities was not the fault of Grammar School pupils. Hmmm but they were the conduit

C'mon you can do better than that... And you parents didn't have considerable costs to find? An inspection report is a flag to do better and is soon remedied. An 11+ failure is for life

Ref; the Apps article on Grenfell ,it's highly critical, well researched and that's fair enough but there is enough there to genuinely criticise without being misleading.. A couple of points: "Margaret Thatcher’s Building Act 1984 comes into force. This introduces a massive deregulation of the industry and a system of ‘performance-based’ regulation, sweeping away 300 pages of previously existing codes dating back centuries." How are the scant building regulations that are hundreds of years old relevant in the 20th century? yet he presents it as a bad thing the

Obviously true but does not take away the benefits education brings to both pupil and society. "Grammar Schools were selective on merit.. not on ability to pay, sorry". Sorry Col but that really comes across as elitist Being smarter does not give anyone an excuse to pull the ladder up behind them. Whether you had a choice is irrelevant and you cannot say your parents were not highly delighted and proud that you were apparently doing better than your peers. You dislike one word pass or fail exams results yet would you not agree the 11+ was pretty much the same.

Not at all it is entirely unreasonable to expect government to monitor the actions of every council decision and also be aware of every transgression by those who should know better. to do so would require a vast increase in the civil service and the cry of nanny state would be deafening.

There is little point in educating anyone by any means unless is to the benefit of society as a whole, how its delivered and what cost is irrelevant. Parents who not only support the state system but are also prepared to forego the benefits from the state system must surely be making a greater contribution. Interesting to note you have blithely ignored my answer to your claim private education is seen as some sort of betterment and superior status. I'm referring of course to the perception attached to grammar school kids and the advantages they have. In short charitable

I'm unsure how gender neutral pronouns are suppose to be used, when refering to he/she i's in the third person and not addressed directly to the person. Speaking directly to someone I use the pronoun "you", it's simple unambiguous and not open to interpretation. They/them is not only pretentious it's stupid and I refuse to play the silly game.

Simple arithmetic tells me it totals £575.000, I wonder if any of the missing £5 million will pay for it?

To be fair Ben that's dislike on a personal basis and offers nothing we can evaluate. Anderson has never shied from controversy and may even be accused of courting it, and today the trial by media is in full swing and the luvvies absolutely wetting themselves whipping it into a frenzy. Has anyone actually read, word for word, what was said? He is accused of racism, because it suits some to do so. however he referred to Islam and Islamists, not as a general slur but a very pointed accusation against Khan and his pals. Islam, as far as I'm aware is a religion not a race so at wo

I didn't say they never lie, I said rarely. The questions is "can you prove it" most, myself included, believe Johnson lied, but prove that he did not believe what he was saying at the time. He was challenged and presented facts to back up his statements. Was he lying, given inaccurate information or simply misinterpreting what his researchers told him? When you say something you sincerely believe that later turns out to be false, are you lying? Is withholding information to suit your own ends a lie? There are so many shades of grey, so many nuances and with a carefu

I didn't say they deliberately kept it quiet I didn't say the were somewhat selective in circulating information I didn't the whole thing was driven by egotistm and ambition The promises they make are so far only theoretical and no doubt will have good excuses when they fail to appear. They claim the decision is following on from the success of previous devolutions, except there are none so far at local level and the devolution of Scotland, Wales And Northern Ireland are open to argument at best. Derby claim new powers will be granted to mayors, I interpret t

BK I can't even begin to imagine how traumatic that is.

An example of how politicians mislead without lying. Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire are to amalgamate into one big authorly at a cost of over £1.1 billion. According to the report put out by the council, after consultation over 53% agreed, yet none I've ever spoken to has any idea it was even suggested never mind actually happening. So how? A statement from the council:- The majority backed the proposals: (note the plural) 53% agreed with the proposals for transport, compared to 35% disagreeing. 52% agreed with the proposals for skills, compa

Bad enough losing close relatives but at such a young age is truly awful...

How would we police it? They will simply turn and say it's (whatever the subject is), a dynamic situation and it was, or they believed it to be true, at the time of the telling. The problem is people don't listen or give proper consideration to what politicians say, or the implications. Most people will readily agree they have no interest in politics or current affairs. Thatcher is famous for claiming to give people more choice. What she meant was we're no loner providing a service and you are free to choose to pay for it privately or go without. Politicians rarely lie they obf

Tonight no doubt you'll be thinking of reasons why you absolutely must have and will die without something costing oodles of dosh, but you're a hopeless case so enjoy...

From the Guardian. "The frightening thing is not that Tories are paraded as more fiscally competent. It’s that even Labour believes it" Starmer says cancel 28 billion green plan, Raynor say it's still on but a bit modified. Left hand right hand? Actually Lets is right, if they had a credible plan they'd shout if from the rooftops. To say they are afraid of what those nasty journalists will say is ridiculous and I for one don't want a government that keeps secrets until after they're in power. Halt illegal immigration. Fail. but with th

Why? What reason has any charity to exist? In light of full disclosure both my children after infants were educated in the private sector. Why? various reasons but mainly because I could. Schools have been given charitable status for what they do. The don't run a factory making widgets and profits. Like other Charites they provide a service that benefits society as a whole. Charities exist because they feel the system is not good enough or is failing to satisfy a need. Help for Heroes, Cancer Research, MIND, Anthony Nolan, Great Ormand Street; the list goes on and

I ate golden syrup sandwiches growing up and I'm very familiar the logo and the motto. but only today have I learned the lion is dead!

I look at the online Morning Star on a semi-regular basis, they allow five free articles a month. I do not subscribe but it's occasionally interesting to see things from a different perspective