So it's class war then...
Discussion
Mark Benson said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
fblm said:
FredClogs said:
This is true, before we had our 3rd child we were in a position where we could quite comfortably put 2 kids through private school on fairly average household income, the third one would be a stretch. But we decided we won't even if we could afford it, partly because the nearest fee paying school isn't particularly good but also because I don't believe that my children's future WILL suffer by going to a local high school. Mine didn't and my parents we more than financially able to educate me privately, my father attended a quite prestigious public school and the experience and memories of it galavanised his opinion that they were little more than breeding grounds for bigoted elitism and some very dodgy ethics. Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
And so the revolution started in the house daddy bought.
Privilege is a wonderful thing. Every revolutionary should have wealthy parents and access to BoMaD as they strive for equality with poorer people.
berlintaxi said:
Derek Smith said:
heppers75 said:
Just as an aside...
My son is on the school rugby team, we played one of the local comps several months ago. We happened to win, pretty much hands down to be fair.
However there was the post match stuff on the field the usual man of the match etc. So we had best try, man of the match and players player, cheapo trophies that get passed on week to week, you know the stuff we probably all did as kids.
They had none of that but the teacher/coach did a we may have lost but we are all winners kind of speech and they all got a "participation" ribbon!!!
My lad plays rugby. He led his team out onto the hallowed turf for a cup final. 'We' beat the other side by more than one score and my lad was presented with the cup. And do you know what the leftie RFU did? They only gave the other side participation medals. That's just asking for a reduction to mediocrity.My son is on the school rugby team, we played one of the local comps several months ago. We happened to win, pretty much hands down to be fair.
However there was the post match stuff on the field the usual man of the match etc. So we had best try, man of the match and players player, cheapo trophies that get passed on week to week, you know the stuff we probably all did as kids.
They had none of that but the teacher/coach did a we may have lost but we are all winners kind of speech and they all got a "participation" ribbon!!!
On an entirely different matter, is there an irony smiley?
Derek Smith said:
berlintaxi said:
Derek Smith said:
heppers75 said:
Just as an aside...
My son is on the school rugby team, we played one of the local comps several months ago. We happened to win, pretty much hands down to be fair.
However there was the post match stuff on the field the usual man of the match etc. So we had best try, man of the match and players player, cheapo trophies that get passed on week to week, you know the stuff we probably all did as kids.
They had none of that but the teacher/coach did a we may have lost but we are all winners kind of speech and they all got a "participation" ribbon!!!
My lad plays rugby. He led his team out onto the hallowed turf for a cup final. 'We' beat the other side by more than one score and my lad was presented with the cup. And do you know what the leftie RFU did? They only gave the other side participation medals. That's just asking for a reduction to mediocrity.My son is on the school rugby team, we played one of the local comps several months ago. We happened to win, pretty much hands down to be fair.
However there was the post match stuff on the field the usual man of the match etc. So we had best try, man of the match and players player, cheapo trophies that get passed on week to week, you know the stuff we probably all did as kids.
They had none of that but the teacher/coach did a we may have lost but we are all winners kind of speech and they all got a "participation" ribbon!!!
On an entirely different matter, is there an irony smiley?
However I am not sure that London Welsh got participation ribbons or medals last Sunday when they lost by 21 points to the Tigers and I am absolutely certain they got a b
king considering how they played and how many chances they missed, even so like most average team sports they would have had a man of the match etc - I think Scott got it but it doesn't mention it on their match report. heppers75 said:
Also in the context of reaching a final in a competition I totally agree.
However I am not sure that London Welsh got participation ribbons or medals last Sunday when they lost by 21 points to the Tigers and I am absolutely certain they got a bking considering how they played and how many chances they missed, even so like most average team sports they would have had a man of the match etc - I think Scott got it but it doesn't mention it on their match report.
Do you go to post match celebrations at league matches?However I am not sure that London Welsh got participation ribbons or medals last Sunday when they lost by 21 points to the Tigers and I am absolutely certain they got a b
king considering how they played and how many chances they missed, even so like most average team sports they would have had a man of the match etc - I think Scott got it but it doesn't mention it on their match report. Certainly the ones I've been to normally includes a positive comment from the winning team about the ability of their opponents and they in turn suggest that the best team won but that they enjoyed the challenge. My son's team beat a team by over 120 points. Yet, at the post match presentations, our coach praised the other team for not giving up and playing hard for the full match.
What goes on during coaching is another matter but I'd assume none would do anything in public.
I can't see anything wrong in rewarding participation if they played their best. I thought that was in the spirit of sport. It certainly is in the spirit on youth rugby. TREDS might be an awful mnemonic but it does say something about the sport.
Derek Smith said:
heppers75 said:
Also in the context of reaching a final in a competition I totally agree.
However I am not sure that London Welsh got participation ribbons or medals last Sunday when they lost by 21 points to the Tigers and I am absolutely certain they got a bking considering how they played and how many chances they missed, even so like most average team sports they would have had a man of the match etc - I think Scott got it but it doesn't mention it on their match report.
Do you go to post match celebrations at league matches?However I am not sure that London Welsh got participation ribbons or medals last Sunday when they lost by 21 points to the Tigers and I am absolutely certain they got a b
king considering how they played and how many chances they missed, even so like most average team sports they would have had a man of the match etc - I think Scott got it but it doesn't mention it on their match report. Certainly the ones I've been to normally includes a positive comment from the winning team about the ability of their opponents and they in turn suggest that the best team won but that they enjoyed the challenge. My son's team beat a team by over 120 points. Yet, at the post match presentations, our coach praised the other team for not giving up and playing hard for the full match.
What goes on during coaching is another matter but I'd assume none would do anything in public.
I can't see anything wrong in rewarding participation if they played their best. I thought that was in the spirit of sport. It certainly is in the spirit on youth rugby. TREDS might be an awful mnemonic but it does say something about the sport.
And yes it does and I think the point I was attempting to make might be being somewhat lost.
A kids rugby team or indeed any team sport should not be not doing the usual man of the match, players player and other recognition of individual performance type awards and dumbing that down any more than you should be not giving the winner of the 60m at a sports day a winners medal rather than give everyone a participation award.
berlintaxi said:
In a general game of kids rugby is it really necessary to hand out trophies etc at the end of the game? Yes, name the man of the match and maybe a small award for that, but a whole award ceremony on the pitch seems a bit OTT.
It is not a line up and/or anything elaborate... End of the game, coach calls over the team... Gives a pep talk and some review... Then spends a couple of minutes announcing man of the match, best try and usually coaches award for best effort. To be fair they do not do players player on the pitch, they do that once a month after a training session.
The on pitch stuff is win or lose though.
heppers75 said:
Gargamel said:
Randomthoughts said:
Yes it is. Where do you think the middle stops?
Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
Whatever you are smoking, please stop. Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
80k gross so around, 55k net.
Property in The southeast, Average is 250k, more if you need three bedrooms.
two cars or rail fares
food
council tax
etc
school fees 12-15k per year.
it just doesn't work. especially if the parents have student debts, or no deposit on the house.
Secondly there is simply too much evidence which suggests that plenty of people do manage. One of my sons best friends at school his parents are a private nurse in a care home and a management accountant in a manufacturing business locally. They are in their late 30's and had their son in their early 30's, have no family money and receive no bursary etc. Both university educated and had the debts to prove it, they are quite open about the fact they have decided to drive two crappy cars (a ten year old Focus and an 8 year old X-Type) and live in a location and house of a lesser level than they could so their son can go to the school.
It is about how much you prioritise your lifestyle vs your childrens future.
oyster said:
heppers75 said:
Gargamel said:
Randomthoughts said:
Yes it is. Where do you think the middle stops?
Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
Whatever you are smoking, please stop. Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
80k gross so around, 55k net.
Property in The southeast, Average is 250k, more if you need three bedrooms.
two cars or rail fares
food
council tax
etc
school fees 12-15k per year.
it just doesn't work. especially if the parents have student debts, or no deposit on the house.
Secondly there is simply too much evidence which suggests that plenty of people do manage. One of my sons best friends at school his parents are a private nurse in a care home and a management accountant in a manufacturing business locally. They are in their late 30's and had their son in their early 30's, have no family money and receive no bursary etc. Both university educated and had the debts to prove it, they are quite open about the fact they have decided to drive two crappy cars (a ten year old Focus and an 8 year old X-Type) and live in a location and house of a lesser level than they could so their son can go to the school.
It is about how much you prioritise your lifestyle vs your childrens future.
FredClogs said:
Mark Benson said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
fblm said:
FredClogs said:
This is true, before we had our 3rd child we were in a position where we could quite comfortably put 2 kids through private school on fairly average household income, the third one would be a stretch. But we decided we won't even if we could afford it, partly because the nearest fee paying school isn't particularly good but also because I don't believe that my children's future WILL suffer by going to a local high school. Mine didn't and my parents we more than financially able to educate me privately, my father attended a quite prestigious public school and the experience and memories of it galavanised his opinion that they were little more than breeding grounds for bigoted elitism and some very dodgy ethics. Instead they used the cash to help me with the deposit on my first house and give me the time to make some good decisions in my late teens and early twenties which freed me from the tyranny of inherited prejudice and the shackles of indentured servitude to a rotten system of capitalist idolatry.
And so the revolution started in the house daddy bought.Privilege is a wonderful thing. Every revolutionary should have wealthy parents and access to BoMaD as they strive for equality with poorer people.
Either that or go f
k yourselves you saddos, this is the internet, people have opinions - it's not personal.heppers75 said:
oyster said:
heppers75 said:
Gargamel said:
Randomthoughts said:
Yes it is. Where do you think the middle stops?
Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
Whatever you are smoking, please stop. Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
80k gross so around, 55k net.
Property in The southeast, Average is 250k, more if you need three bedrooms.
two cars or rail fares
food
council tax
etc
school fees 12-15k per year.
it just doesn't work. especially if the parents have student debts, or no deposit on the house.
Secondly there is simply too much evidence which suggests that plenty of people do manage. One of my sons best friends at school his parents are a private nurse in a care home and a management accountant in a manufacturing business locally. They are in their late 30's and had their son in their early 30's, have no family money and receive no bursary etc. Both university educated and had the debts to prove it, they are quite open about the fact they have decided to drive two crappy cars (a ten year old Focus and an 8 year old X-Type) and live in a location and house of a lesser level than they could so their son can go to the school.
It is about how much you prioritise your lifestyle vs your childrens future.
oyster said:
heppers75 said:
oyster said:
heppers75 said:
Gargamel said:
Randomthoughts said:
Yes it is. Where do you think the middle stops?
Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
Whatever you are smoking, please stop. Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
80k gross so around, 55k net.
Property in The southeast, Average is 250k, more if you need three bedrooms.
two cars or rail fares
food
council tax
etc
school fees 12-15k per year.
it just doesn't work. especially if the parents have student debts, or no deposit on the house.
Secondly there is simply too much evidence which suggests that plenty of people do manage. One of my sons best friends at school his parents are a private nurse in a care home and a management accountant in a manufacturing business locally. They are in their late 30's and had their son in their early 30's, have no family money and receive no bursary etc. Both university educated and had the debts to prove it, they are quite open about the fact they have decided to drive two crappy cars (a ten year old Focus and an 8 year old X-Type) and live in a location and house of a lesser level than they could so their son can go to the school.
It is about how much you prioritise your lifestyle vs your childrens future.
It is certainly not our only rationale and as it happens we could now comfortably afford to put another 2 or 3 through that system, when we decided to have our son that was not certain and one of the reasons we chose one (outside of various none related issues) was that we wanted to ensure we could give one child the best chance in life. We might have "wanted" more but we "chose" not to give in to want and instead focus on what we could responsibly do.
There are far far far too many that do not!
Bluebarge said:
TBF, it's not been clear for a long time why private schools should be taxed as charities when many are actually very wealthy and profitable enterprises whose fees are unaffordable for all except a very few. If they offered more scholarships they might have some justification for special treatment, but the idea that somewhere like Eton should be taxed on the same basis as Oxfam is pretty laughable.
Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
I've just had this debate with a friend, and I've sent him this part of an article from The Guardian. Private schools do not make a profit.Given the deficit, this is precisely the sort of tax dodge that any government should be looking at.
But don't let me interfere with a good old PH anti-leftie rant.
Profit-making firms already provide a multitude of educational services, and itch to gain full ownership and control. Though the IEA blames the state for keeping the profit motive out of schools, that principle applies almost as firmly in the private as in the maintained sector. All the famous fee-charging schools, such as Eton, Rugby and Wellington, are non-profit; the schools that uphold the true capitalist faith, making profits and therefore losing tax concessions, educate just 82,000 children in England, or barely 1%
FredClogs said:
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
Here is a link with some facts and some quotes from Labour minister Tristan Hunt (obvious Rupert name is obvious) which give an insight into the real motivation behind this...
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
But then the same thing should apply to other organisation mascarading as charities which often provide little benefit to the wider community and benefit a niche group.http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
heppers75 said:
It is certainly not our only rationale and as it happens we could now comfortably afford to put another 2 or 3 through that system, when we decided to have our son that was not certain and one of the reasons we chose one (outside of various none related issues) was that we wanted to ensure we could give one child the best chance in life. We might have "wanted" more but we "chose" not to give in to want and instead focus on what we could responsibly do.
There are far far far too many that do not!
Just out of interest how will you feel if your son fails all his GCSEs or doesn't decide to go to uni or even falls off the rails completely, seen plenty of privately educated kids who have, regardless of how much their parents spent on their education.There are far far far too many that do not!
nightflight said:
I've just had this debate with a friend, and I've sent him this part of an article from The Guardian. Private schools do not make a profit.
Profit-making firms already provide a multitude of educational services, and itch to gain full ownership and control. Though the IEA blames the state for keeping the profit motive out of schools, that principle applies almost as firmly in the private as in the maintained sector. All the famous fee-charging schools, such as Eton, Rugby and Wellington, are non-profit; the schools that uphold the true capitalist faith, making profits and therefore losing tax concessions, educate just 82,000 children in England, or barely 1%
I'd always understood that charities 'cannot' make profits, it's called a surplus. That surplus can then be used (rather like profits) to further the aims of said charity. I learned this at the Ashridge Management College which was itself a registered charity back in 1990. Rather like Common Purpose it made a healthy living, teaching all and sundry about the art and craft of business at £1000/week.Profit-making firms already provide a multitude of educational services, and itch to gain full ownership and control. Though the IEA blames the state for keeping the profit motive out of schools, that principle applies almost as firmly in the private as in the maintained sector. All the famous fee-charging schools, such as Eton, Rugby and Wellington, are non-profit; the schools that uphold the true capitalist faith, making profits and therefore losing tax concessions, educate just 82,000 children in England, or barely 1%
hidetheelephants said:
FredClogs said:
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
Here is a link with some facts and some quotes from Labour minister Tristan Hunt (obvious Rupert name is obvious) which give an insight into the real motivation behind this...
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
But then the same thing should apply to other organisation mascarading as charities which often provide little benefit to the wider community and benefit a niche group.http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920
There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.
Interestingly enough one of Ms Sturgeon's headline policy changes for her new leadership of the SNP is all about land reform in scotland - so perhaps things might change once some proper socialists get more power north of the border.
berlintaxi said:
Just out of interest how will you feel if your son fails all his GCSEs or doesn't decide to go to uni or even falls off the rails completely, seen plenty of privately educated kids who have, regardless of how much their parents spent on their education.
One of my mentors sent his kids to an expensive school, one did well but is now a primary school teacher the other didn't do so well but now runs a successful business - when I spoke to him about maybe putting my eldest into private school (before the other two came along) his advice was to do it if I liked but to always remember it was my choice and any angst, anger, pressure or stress about the outcomes should ever be fed down to the child, it's not their fault.I think a lot of people put way too much pressure on children to perform or have aspirations that they may well just not have, it's not healthy.
heppers75 said:
Or you could simply choose to have the children you can afford!
Completely agree with your sentiment in general, but are you seriously suggesting there are £40k earners out there sticking to just one child in order to pay for private school fees some ten or more years later?It is certainly not our only rationale and as it happens we could now comfortably afford to put another 2 or 3 through that system, when we decided to have our son that was not certain and one of the reasons we chose one (outside of various none related issues) was that we wanted to ensure we could give one child the best chance in life. We might have "wanted" more but we "chose" not to give in to want and instead focus on what we could responsibly do.
There are far far far too many that do not!
My point is that you need to be pretty damn wealthy to be able to afford private schooling for an average of 2 kids. (and be honest, having 2 children is hardly mass breeding is it?)
berlintaxi said:
heppers75 said:
It is certainly not our only rationale and as it happens we could now comfortably afford to put another 2 or 3 through that system, when we decided to have our son that was not certain and one of the reasons we chose one (outside of various none related issues) was that we wanted to ensure we could give one child the best chance in life. We might have "wanted" more but we "chose" not to give in to want and instead focus on what we could responsibly do.
There are far far far too many that do not!
Just out of interest how will you feel if your son fails all his GCSEs or doesn't decide to go to uni or even falls off the rails completely, seen plenty of privately educated kids who have, regardless of how much their parents spent on their education.There are far far far too many that do not!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff