Anything Political

[DJ360 6,721]

On 2/20/2024 at 8:31 PM, Brew said:

The vast majority if independents are not like Harrow, Eton or Roedean. they are quite small, Iona, Hollygirt etc with pupils in the ten, hundreds. Perhaps you could propose a rebate for the the cost of a place at state school that they forgo? 

 

The size of the school is irrelevant. I would have no objection to a rebate in principle if it could be accurately worked out, which I seriously doubt because that would involve Govt. in some pretty embarrassing  number crunching and revelations.

 

The issue of 'Charitable Status' is one of principle. You are obliged by law to ensure that your child is educated to age 16. (Let's leave the post 16 rules aside for now.)

You have the basic choice of State Education, Home Schooling, or Independent, fee paying education.  If you choose the latter, you are effectively purchasing education as a commodity, but you are also purchasing a kind of exclusivity, because most Independent, Fee Paying schools are selective.

I see no reason whatsoever why Independent schools should qualify for Charitable Status, which mostly confers benefits in terms of taxation and this especially because such schools expect fees to be paid in full which amounts to purchase of a service in exchange for cash.

 

From: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05222/

Quote

What is a charity?

The Charities Act 2011 defines a charity as an institution which is established for charitable purposes only and is subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Act lists descriptions of a charitable purpose and states it must be for the public benefit.

The advancement of education is one description of a charitable purpose and so independent schools are capable of being charities. Educational charities, like all other charities, must demonstrate they are for the public benefit. There is no statutory definition of what this means.

 

It's all very wooly and convenient isn't it? Apart from a very few 'scholarships' offering fee remission, I'd be interested to read exactly what 'Public Benefit' derives from Charitable status of Independent schools.

 

It's also fascinating that 'the poor' can be described as beneficiaries of Independent Schools, but that there is no legal definition of 'the poor'. In fact, Eton was set up specifically for 'the poor', though pinning down a definition of those is difficult too.

 

In contrast, I have the (largely theoretical) choice to choose NHS Dentistry, or to pay for Private Dentistry. Idon't expect charitable support for my Private Dentistry and neither, as far as I know, does my Dentist.

 

On 2/21/2024 at 5:56 PM, Brew said:

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

 

Knee jerk reactions? Grenfell happened almost 7 years ago and as yet, to my knowledge NOBODY has yet been held responsible for the failures in regulation and deliberate negligence which caused it. Furthermore, thousands of innocent people around the country, in both social and privately owned/rented property have their lives blighted by the failure of Govt. to 'grip' this situation and get on with addressing both the safety and financial concerns people are living with. It is just another example of big business effectively 'getting away with it'.  Just like Carillion.

 

As for the Post Office.. This goes back 20 years though it was largely rerpressed in the early stages.  I'm literally listening to the Govt. Business Committee enquiry into that mess as I type. It is quite astounding to hear how 'The Post Office' as an edifice, continues to duck, dive, obfuscate, avoid, deny, delay and do anything else 'it' can to avoid both blame, and reparation. One witness went so far as to suggest that the Post Office is 'a Dead Duck', which should be sold to somebody like Amazon, who would undoubtedly make a 'better fist' of things.  I'm not sure I'd agree with that, as being a raving lefty I'd favour re-nationalisation, but I certainly believe that the organisation and management of the Post Office (A Private Company Limited by Shares),has become an impenetrable 'rogue bureaucracy' which serves nobody well and which is populated by people with self interest and the avoidance of personal blame/consequences driving the whole 'Horizon Scandal' process.

Watch it and listen to what is being said. It is appalling, whatever your politics.

Govt. has the power to fix this very quickly.  Will it?  Don't hold your breath.

[Beekay 5,134]

1 hour ago, Jill Sparrow said:

I, personally, don't know any chaps who make their own frocks, Beekay.

Well there you go Petal. I do.

[Jill Sparrow 10,304]

53 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

I’ve always been outspoken so being offensive comes naturally to me. 

I was brought up to say what I thought by people who said what they thought and had no patience with beaters around the bush.  I'm too old to change now.

[DJ360 6,721]

On 2/21/2024 at 5:56 PM, Brew said:

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.

 

Not at all. The whole thing is a result of long term and determined de-regulation, including the privatisation of Regulatory bodies, which ALL result from Thatcherite and NeoCon obsession with establishing a business free for all. You dismissed Peter Apps before, can you dismiss this as easily?

 

http://regulation.org.uk/library/2021-peter_apps-grenfell_deregulation_timeline.pdf

 

And yes, you can probably argue that Labour should have reversed some of this, but the fact remains that Deregulation and Privatisation are Tory policies and mantras and they must bear responsibility for the results. The main point here though, is that whatever the Govt. did or did not know at the time of Grenfell it was SEVEN YEARS AGO, and they have done precious little to change things because they are still obsessed with deregulation and privatisation and still 'in thrall' to big money.

 

Re., the Post Office. For years, the victims were isolated and told that it was 'only them'. It's hard to pin down exactly when the issue became public knowledge, but a group of 'victims' took legal action against the Post Office in 2015, by which time the Tories had had 5 years to act.

 

From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56718036

Quote

In 2017, a group of 555 sub-postmasters took legal action against the Post Office. In 2019, it agreed to pay them £58m in compensation, but much of the money they received was swallowed up by legal fees.

Although campaigners won the right to have their cases reconsidered, as at 15 January 2024, only 95 convictions had been overturned.

The Metropolitan Police is also investigating the Post Office over potential fraud offences arising from the prosecutions.

A public inquiry began in February 2021, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) said the scandal was "the most widespread miscarriage of justice the CCRC has ever seen, and represents the biggest single series of wrongful convictions in British legal history".

 

And SEVEN YEARS ON.. Govt.,which effectively owns the Post Office, is still not gripping the issue.

There is no excuse.

[DJ360 6,721]

10 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

The "wokelings are alive and well, as I see today that BBFC(British Board of Film Classification)has raised the rating of Mary Poppins from a G General or U Universal rating to a PG Parental Guidance rating as some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. Apparently, it is all about the use of the word Hottentots which is now regarded as racially offensive.

I doubt very much that a young child of today would know what a Hottentot is/was.

FFS how the heck did we get here, we must take back control and stop this stupidity. I suggest we start by not using neutral gender words. A female who acts is an actress and a male who acts is an actor, any other suggestions?

 

I'm disappointed that you are perpetuating the misuse of the term Woke.  There is no coherent 'woke' conspiracy. Woke is now degraded to a term which is used to belittle and undermine any and all opposition to the status quo.  I might agree with you over Mary Poppins, but I'm not playing the 'Woke' 'culture wars' game.

[DJ360 6,721]

13 hours ago, Brew said:

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.

 

He accused Khan of being 'controlled' by Islamists and he refuses to withdraw the comment. Where is his evidence?  How about if I accused some politician or political entity of being 'controlled by Jews, or Zionists?'  How long would it be before everybody rounded on me?

 

Anderson has no place in civilised society, much less in Parliament.  He should be prosecuted for inciting religious hatred.

[benjamin1945 16,139]

14 hours ago, Brew said:

To be fair Ben that's dislike on a personal basis....

Thats 'Spot on'' Brew....

[DJ360 6,721]

On 2/22/2024 at 6:47 PM, Brew said:

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...

 

You misread me entirely.  Barring accidents, my hi-fi system is now at a standard which I'm happy with, so that barring any catastrophic failure, I'm not looking to upgrade or replace anything.

I was at one point sorely tempted by the latest 2x 12" vinyl disc repressing/mastering of Joni Mitchell's seminal 'Blue' album at a mere £150, but I decided that my original 1970 copy, my later Reprise re-press and my 2 CD copies are enough. In any case, though in my view musically unimpeachable, Blue always had some recording issues, which I doubt can be fixed. They don't spoil my enjoyment of the music.

 

My friend on the other hand bought four or five 'sooper-dooper' vinyl pressings for around £400 total. He was quite restrained by his standards.  But then again, he is presently using Tannoy 'Canterbury' Loudspeakers, which have a current retail price in excess of £32k.  They are part of the Tannoy 'Prestige' series which is topped out by the 'Westminster Royals'

at £55k. I've heard the Westminsters at the Tannoy factory and they are simply the best I have ever heard, anywhere.

 

I heard some very nice systems, mostly out of my price range, but it was all good fun.  I had a catch up and chat with Andy Whittle from Rogers Loudspeakers, who made my speakers 26 years ago. He seemed genuinely happy that I'm still happy.

Also a good natter to Steve Rowlands from Mitchell, who made my turntable. He was making very nice noises with Michell's cheapest record player, the 'Technodec', (£2k including 'Techno Arm' and cartridge), through a British 'Arcam' amplifier and some very impressive PMC loudspeakers also at a little under £2k. Michell are best known for the Gyrodec..

 

And the Orbe, which I have.. though mine has clear perspex and silver finish in places.

It seems Steve is working on a new player which will sit above the Orbe in the hierarchy (and cost) and therefore challenge some of the more expensive players from the likes of Linn, Clearaudio and many others.

[DJ360 6,721]

On 2/22/2024 at 12:32 PM, letsavagoo said:

I don’t read the Guardian but a little internet research indicates it has a centre left stance so would suit you. It would not appear to have the internationally acknowledged neutral stance you claim.

 

Yes, the Guardian has a Centre Left stance, which is very far from being 'extreme left' or even 'far left'.

 

You are correct about the international picture.  What is internationally acknowledged is that the Guardian is the 'most trusted' UK paper.

 

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

 

Quote

The Guardian is a British daily newspaper. It was founded in 1821 as The Manchester Guardian, before it changed its name in 1959.^[4] Along with its sister papers, The Observer and The Guardian Weekly, The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group, owned by the Scott Trust Limited.^[5] The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference".^[6] The trust was converted into a limited company in 2008, with a constitution written so as to maintain for The Guardian the same protections as were built into the structure of the Scott Trust by its creators. Profits are reinvested in its journalism rather than distributed to owners or shareholders.^[6] It is considered a newspaper of record in the UK.^[7][8]

 

In an Ipsos MORI research poll in September 2018 designed to interrogate the public's trust of specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest for digital-content news, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what [they] see in it".^[16] A December 2018 report of a poll by the Publishers Audience Measurement Company stated that the paper's print edition was found to be the most trusted in the UK in the period from October 2017 to September 2018. It was also reported to be the most-read of the UK's "quality newsbrands", including digital editions; other "quality" brands included The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and the i. While The Guardian's print circulation is in decline, the report indicated that news from The Guardian, including that reported online, reaches more than 23 million UK adults each month.^[17]

 

Also from Wiki

'In 2007, the newspaper was ranked first in a study on transparency that analysed 25 mainstream English-language media vehicles, which was conducted by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda of the University of Maryland.^[325] It scored 3.8 out of a possible 4.0'

https://web.archive.org/web/20080515174519/http://www.icmpa.umd.edu/pages/studies/transparency/main.html

 

[Brew 5,409]

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.

 

[Brew 5,409]

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.

[DJ360 6,721]

29 minutes ago, Brew said:

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.

 

That sort of sophistry almost makes the parents themselves sound charitable when you and I both know that people choose private education because of the perceived benefits to their child(ren), not out of altruism.

 

29 minutes ago, Brew said:

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.

 

Not ignored, just overlooked. (I have a backlog of righteousness to dispense... )

Yes it's true that Grammar Schools provided an arguably 'better' education to their students, who, in turn, benefitted by improved access to  some post school opportunities. But only because their pupils had already proven their capability in a test open to all. It's equally arguable that many others would not have benefitted from such an education. We had a few 'transfers', both 'in' and 'out'.

We could argue forever about how suited the 11+ exam was to the task, but it was what it was.

It was the 1944 Education Act which provided first of all for FREE Secondary Education for all, but also for streaming into Grammar, Technical and Secondary Modern.

 

The 1944 Education Act: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/overview/educationact1944/

 

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.

[DJ360 6,721]

6 minutes ago, Brew said:

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.

 

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

It is Tory 'deregulation' and the privatisation of regulation to dispense with the myth of 'red tape', which brought us to this pass.  Had the Tories not deliberately deregulated then those responsible would be much more easily brought to book and it's probable Grenfell would not have happened anyway.

Deregulation of everything from Construction, to Health, to Public Utilities and Transport have been an unmitigated disaster.  You know this.

[Brew 5,409]

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.

 

[DJ360 6,721]

2 minutes ago, Brew said:

Sorry  Col but that really comes across as elitist

 

I withdraw the word 'merit' and replace it with 'ability'. Is that less 'elitist'?

3 minutes ago, Brew said:

Being smarter does not give anyone an excuse to pull the ladder up behind them.

 

And yet being wealthier does?

 

4 minutes ago, Brew said:

you cannot say your parents were not highly delighted and proud that you were apparently doing better than your peers.

 

I didn't say that. They were proud, but they also very firmly reminded me of just how much even this 'free' Grammar School education was going to cost for stuff like uniforms etc., and expected me to act accordingly.  I was immensely proud not only to go to the school, but of the school itself.

[DJ360 6,721]

9 minutes ago, Brew said:

You dislike one word pass or fail exams results yet would you not agree the 11+ was pretty much the same.

 

It's actually 'One Word' Inspection Reports I dislike as they are meant to convey an impression to all and sundry. The 11+ was a selection process. A different method with a different purpose.

 

I don't know how the 11+ was assessed, but I do know that there were a number of elements to it. and it was used to select enough students to fill the available Grammar School places, as well as, I assume, Technical School places.It wasn't perfect, but what is?

[Brew 5,409]

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.

 

 

[Brew 5,409]

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

[philmayfield 6,115]

Even grammar schools were selective, dividing the entrants into A,B and C forms. This was presumably on 11+ results. There was the ability to rise through the ranks dependant on exam results over the years. The C’s and most of the B’s left in the fifth form at age 16. Those with 6 or 7 O-levels went into the 6th form and either down the arts or science routes. I was fortunate to start and remain in the A stream. I believe we were split into arts and science groups at the fourth form stage whilst the ‘also rans’ were either B or C’s.

[DJ360 6,721]

Here's a post from earlier I typed but neglected to press 'submit'.

 

 I withdraw the word 'merit' and replace it with 'ability'. Is that less 'elitist'?

9 minutes ago, Brew said:

Being smarter does not give anyone an excuse to pull the ladder up behind them.

 

And yet being wealthier does?

 

9 minutes ago, Brew said:

you cannot say your parents were not highly delighted and proud that you were apparently doing better than your peers.

 

I didn't say that. They were proud, but they also very firmly reminded me of just how much even this 'free' Grammar School education was going to cost for stuff like uniforms etc., and expected me to act accordingly.  I was immensely proud not only to go to the school, but of the school itself.

 

 

[DJ360 6,721]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

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

 

How?  It isn't illegal to pay for an 'exclusive' education, but you argued that attending Grammar Schools via selection on ability smacked of 'pulling the ladder up', and yet somehow you appear to be saying that having the means to buy a 'better' education doesn't.

And anyway, my issue is with Charitable Status for 'independent' (I.E. Fee Charging) schools.

[DJ360 6,721]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

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

 

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, unless people just rolled over and accepted their 'fate'. There are numerous examples of people who did as well or better, both financially and educationally, after having missed a Grammar School place.

 

I fully agree that it was a pretty brutal selection process and there are multiple criticisms which can and have been levelled at the process, but it was arguably better than what went before, since, as I understand it, access to Grammar School type education was very restricted prior to WW2. The system resulting from the 1944 Act was an attempt to provide FREE secondary education for all, including more places for those capable of benefitting from a more 'academic' regime, plus similar for a 'technical' regime and for everyone else.  I am completely sure that many of a less 'academic bent', would have been thoroughly miserable if confronted with a Grammar School education. Failure to fund good enough 'Secondary Modern' educational facilities was not the fault of Grammar School pupils.

[Brew 5,409]

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...

 

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,721]

1 hour ago, philmayfield said:

Even grammar schools were selective, dividing the entrants into A,B and C forms. This was presumably on 11+ results. There was the ability to rise through the ranks dependant on exam results over the years. The C’s and most of the B’s left in the fifth form at age 16. Those with 6 or 7 O-levels went into the 6th form and either down the arts or science routes.

 

HP was divided into 4 'streams'. Nothing to do with 11+ results as I recall, because we were all just taught the same stuff in Yrs 7,8 and 9. Allocation to one of the 4 'streams' was based on performance in years 7, 8 and 9...a.k.a. First Second and Third Form.  The formal GCE courses did not start until 4th year and your range of subjects was mostly determined by your 'stream'.

 

'Modern A'.  The top lot, they did English Language and Lit, three sciences, Latin plus one other other Modern Language, History OR Geography and Maths. 9 Subjects.. if memory serves.

'Science A'  All of the above, minus Latin. I was in the Science A stream.

'Science B'  I don't recall the difference between Science A and B

'Modern B' Again.. I don't recall.

In my final year I dropped History, which I hated, in the hope of picking up my appalling Maths, but it didn't help.

 

So I ended up with 6 O Levels, not including Maths.

[Brew 5,409]

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.