Brew

Members
  • Content Count

    6,492
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    84

Posts posted by Brew

  1. 30 minutes ago, benjamin1945 said:

    Seems to me that many folk think that because you didnt go to Grammar school you must have failed the 11 plus.........not true.......

     

    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.

  2. 1 minute ago, DJ360 said:

    It is a simple fact, that the existence of fee paying Independents allows a 'win' to be purchased by those who can afford to do so.

    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'

     

    • Upvote 1
  3. 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.

  4. 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 outright. 

    The great levelling up of education was in my opinion a great disaster of rounding down through the comprehensive system.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  5. 34 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

    In a very real sense, nobody 'passed' or 'failed' the 11 plus. It was a selection process, not an exam. And it also wasn't for life

     

    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.

  6. 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 to university where most of the government comes from, and they make the rules...

     

     

     

     

     

  7. 1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

    And yet being wealthier does?

    C'mon you can do better than that...

    And you parents didn't have considerable costs to find?

     

    1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

    The 11+ was a selection process. A different method with a different purpose.

     

    An inspection report is a flag to do better and is soon remedied. An 11+ failure is for life

  8. 1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

    You miss my point entirely. It is not about 'nanny states', or Govt. 'micro management'. It is about haveing effective regulation

     

    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 they are rescinded. Maybe he'd like to live in a house built to the same standards as those in the 1700s.

     

    "Grant Shapps, the new housing minister, announces the axeing of the Tenant
    Services Authority – a regulator that was established in 2008 with a mandate to police
    services to tenants in the social housing sector"

     

    Nowhere in the regulations does it include building construction guidelines. It was purely for tenant services, but it sounds awful that the government scrapped it.

     

    "there was a lot of pressure to reduce regulation"

     

    But he doesn't say regulation of what and to believe the government lowered the standard of construction deliberately is nonsense. Did some penny pinching builder cheat? I don't know. Were they aware of the fire risks? I don't know that either. Clearly there is blame here but to lay all on the government is just wrong.

     

    Many industries are regulated and some are quite draconian in their scope yet screw -ups, cock-ups and accidents still happen.

     

     

  9. 2 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

    However, the elephant in the room is that Grammar Schools were selective on merit.. not on ability to pay. I had no idea I was going to HP until a letter dropped through my letter box. It was not my choice, nor that of my parents. It was determined by what at the time was a progressive system.

     

    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.

     

  10. 3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    Tory policies and mantras and they must bear responsibility for the results.

     

    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.

  11. 3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    Educational charities, like all other charities, must demonstrate they are for the public benefit.

    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 status depends on the organisation befitting society, to claim schools do not meet that criteria seems strange to say the least.

     

  12. 8 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

    suggest we start by not using neutral gender words

     

    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.

    • Like 3
  13. 6 hours ago, Stavertongirl said:

    I have a question. What are the Commissioners coming in to sort the Council budget out going to do precisely? Also why are they costing £1,500 and 2 at just over £1000 a day? Seems a bit excessive when the Council is already bankrupt. I await to be enlightened.

     

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

  14. 2 hours ago, benjamin1945 said:

    ex Miner who just goes with anything to stay in the limelight.....he just looks and sounds so False...

    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 worst it's discrimination, but if you can work the racism angle it carries more weight.

     

    Name calling, cat calling is part of the ridiculous, childish behaviour we see every day in the commons, The beast of Bolsover was famous for it. Col is practically on a crusade about Tory cronyism and their misdeeds and that's fine, it's fervent belief and should be free to say so, why can't MPs be allowed the same privilege? The typical answer is because of the amount of influence he has... really?

     

    One day when MPs can be arsed to turn up and stop watching porn on the phone. they might start to pay attention and deliver some decent arguments instead of this incessant squabbling.

     

    He may be boorish but with so little freedom to say what we think the slightest awkward phrase is seized upon, and taken out of context by those who are habitually 'offended'.

    Perhaps they should go and buy some big boys pants.

    • Like 2
  15. 4 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

    Do you really believe that politicians of all persuasions were not blatantly lying over Brexit? 

     

    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 careful choice of words the average person really stands no chance of sorting the wheat from chaff.

     

     

    4 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

    If I were a TV or radio interviewer or a newspaper reporter and a pollie obfuscated or didn't answer the question asked I would immediately end the interview and tell the public why I had terminated the interview.

     

    Is  that a better way than letting them continue to make a fools of them selves? The next question...is he lying? This was quite famous at the time:

     It was a battle of wills and Paxman lost in my opinion by allowing the interview to move on. 

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqU77I40mS0

     

    The BBC also fact checks some articles but like so many of the discussions in this forum the evidence can vary depending on where you look for it.

     

     

  16. 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 that as able to raise local taxes as and when they see fit, and make controversial decisions without too much opposition.  ULEZ...20mph...

     

    Devolution in Wales was defeated with an 80% rejection, it came to pass years later with a supposed 0.3% majority vote in favour. Given the example of Notts and Derby can we trust the result?

     

    Three quotes from The Institute for Government report:

     

    Devolution is an expensive luxury in terms of the costs of setting up and running the devolved bodies:

     

    Questions still remain about whether devolution will lead to the break up of Britain.

     

    All the same, those who hoped that devolution would energise, inform and unite the policy makers of the UK must surely be disappointed. The picture is more one of local divergence. 

     

    To be fair there are some authors who have claimed there are benefits, mainly for Wales and mainly from an ex CEO and editor of Prospect, a left wing periodical.

     

    Much of the report (it's very long), concerns the four countries and seem to indicate Blairs 'New Labour and 'New Politics' have had mixed results. To my mind it simply means the more things change the more they stay as they are, they just have different names and we have less of a say.

     

     

     

  17. 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, compared to 32% disagreeing.

    51% agreed with the proposals for reducing carbon and improving the environment, compared to 33% disagreeing.

    51% agreed with the proposals for public health, compared to 33% disagreeing.

     

    Note the questions, It does not actually ask if anyone wanted  an extra layer of authority, a super council over the four that exist now, and the attendant costs. 

    It extolls the possible virtues of various aspects of such a setup but does not actually ask if people agreed with the amalgamation.

     

    Out of 2.2 million residents only 4869 responded, that's 0.22% - less than one quarter of one percent.

    Put another way the biggest percentage (for transport, but doesn't say what) is  53%. That's only 2580 - out of  2,200,000 (0.13%)

     

    To claim a majority voted in favour is true, it's not a lie - but is it really the truth?

    • Like 1
  18. 9 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

    It is way past time that laws are put in place to have "truth in politics" to prevent blatant lies being told particularly in the run up to elections.

     

    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 obfuscate, present details in ways that can be difficult to understand. smoke and mirrors. Alternatively they simply refused to say anything.

     

    The recently bankrupt Nottingham City Council  yesterday refused to say where £5 million, granted by the government, and designated for the homeless in the city has gone. Commercial sensitivity they claim which is absolute BS. What is sensitive about providing a service to the homeless. Is it true? if they say nothing at all are they lying?

    On matters of national security I can accept some things should not be in the public domain, but a council? what are they doing that we are not allowed to know about?

     

    Your post demonstrates some poor decisions, incompetence and maybe some lies but how can you tell until after the fact?

  19. 5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    It is debateable whether Labour live up to the label they are constantly saddled with by the UK print media. 

    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?

     

     

    5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    No. It's a reasonable electoral strategy. WHATEVER labour propose in terms of specifics, will attract the same bile and it's clear from recent election results that Labour don't need to expose themselves to that.

    OTOH, the Tories came in promising to:

    -Halt illegal immigration.  Fail.

    -Get Brexit dun. Fail

    -Implement Brixit 'benefits' Fail

    -Fix Adult Social Care. Fail, etc.,. etc..

    After 14 years, trying to blame everything on Covid is frankly pathetic.

     

    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 the help of Labour who want to keep twisting the thorn in Sunaks side

    Get Brexit dun. Fail

    Implement Brixit 'benefits' Fail

    did both... just not in a way anyone wanted.

    Fix Adult Social Care. Fail,

    It was Labour who abolished the poor laws and made local authorities responsible for social care, and it was Labour who introduced care in the community due to the rising costs.

     

    The poor laws provided for each parish to levy for support of the sick and the lame. The howls now about poor social care would be drowned out by the howls of protest should they be reintroduced. The social care problem is not new.

    In a country with an aging population this will be a never ending saga regardless of government, but granted the Tories could do better.

     

     

    5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    don't buy ANY newspaper. Only the Guardian has anything approaching a neutral stance based on facts and internationally acknowledged as such. It's not owned by big business, or foreigners.  A look at the headlines on display in the local newsagent is enough to put me off.  I don't doubt that there is criticism of govt. within the pages of most/all newspapers, but that is not the overt stance suggested by their headlines, or adopted by broadcast media.

    Your comment about the Socialist Worker, or the Morning Star, or whatever you meant..is unnecessary and borderline Ad Hom. You know full well that I have repeatedly defined my politics as Democratic and Centre Left.

     

    Lets be real the Guardian is about as neutral as Johnson and for any left leaning reader it's more like a mutual admiration society.

    Garnering sufficient information from headlines on different publications to make an informed opinion is quite a trick Col but I'm afraid vague impressions don't usually tell the whole story.

    Unless you're referring to Fox News or GB News I can't see any overt bias in the BBC or mainstream TV news, indeed Ofcom are quite keen on keeping it that way.

     

    "You know full well that I have repeatedly defined my politics as Democratic and Centre Left."

     

    It's a brave man that can analyse himself, if only we could ourselves as other see us...

  20. 5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    Irrelevant.

    I'm talking about removing 'charitable' status. If Private schools cannot exist without that, plus the fees they charge. then why do they exist?

    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 on. Giving them charitable status is a way of providing help and support.

    To deny such as The Macmillan Trust and the whole charity sector simply on the basis  that Eton provides PMs you don't agree with is surprisingly petulant.

     

    Most parents are not too bothered about a a rebate as you say, and in my case that's true, just as I now contribute to state education and council facilities but don't use them.

     

    5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    There are also deeply ingrained perceptions in some quarters that the fact of having been to a Private school somehow means that someone is 'better' in some way.

     

    And?

    Are you're advocating we should all have the same opinions and world view?

    I could ask why did you or anyone else go to a Grammar school? after all they were given a bigger slice of the pie and better resources.  Are they not also seen as advantageous? Isn't there also a perception someone with a grammar school education are better in some way?

     

     

    5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    Well yes, Govt. is not and should not be above the Law, but it does ultimately make and alter the Law. It seems to have a distorted perception of priorities, having invested huge amounts of its own and Parliaments' time in pursuit of , for e.g., the Rwanda Bill.. i.e. effectively changing the Law, but very little on making sure that the Law is effective in bringing to book those responsible for Grenfell and other iniquities, or indeed preventing future repeats.  As ever, the forces of self interest are quietly carrying on business as usual.

     

    It 'seems',  - means what you're saying is merely your perception and not evidence.

    The Rwanda debacle is parliament and the legal system butting heads. Parliament, as it should, gave way to due process which is why it's taking so long and costs the legal aid system so much.

    Prevent future repeats? like that's even going to happen. How times have we heard " it must never happen again"... didn't we fight a war to end all wars?

    The Peter Apps quote is quite frankly meaningless.

     

    5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    No. We have an admission by the Post Office that hundreds of people were wrongfully prosecuted and convicted, up to 20 years ago

     

    Did they? is that what they said?

    You think the Tories should have been aware of the fraudulent work and disregard if the rules at Grenfell, so by the same metric it puts Labour firmly in the frame for failing to see the Post Office fiasco.

    Both ideas are clearly nonsense.

    It may seem insensitive to say it but Grenfell and the Post Office must run their course and resist knee jerk reactions.

     

     

    5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    The NeoCon comment is not a jibe, it's a fact. PFI originates from NeoCon ideology.

     

    And Labour having no idea of their own took it to heart and ran with it. Trying to reassociate it to the Tory side is merely  obfuscation.

    It's true PFI contracts can be terminated  with nothing more than political will, but...

    PPP_terminations_policy_note.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

    It's not so easy, or cheap.

     

     

     

    5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    We all know Covid cost a fortune.  The real question is around how effectively that money was spent, and where huge chunks of it actually went. Govt borrowing was rising before Covid.

     Fact check. No it wasn't. Labour held borrowing reasonably steady until the '08 crash when it massively increased. The debt was then handed on the the Tories who kept it fairly stable and actually falling 2018/19 - until Covid.

    The level of borrowing was pretty much forced on to both governments. Asking where the money went is another attempt to disparage the Tories and divert from the subject without recognising or acknowledging the the root cause.

     

    5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

    Yep, and that 'other matter' consisted of destroying British manufacturing

    I was merely pointing out you were wrong to claim she did not reduce inflation.

    Simply because  we feel she was the devil incarnate does not mean we should not be accurate :rolleyes: