He can afford Roedean fees BECAUSE he is a union official. Ripping off union members.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Corbynite councillor sends daughter to Roedean
- Thread starter The Clown of Pevensey Bay
- Start date
He can afford Roedean fees BECAUSE he is a union official. Ripping off union members.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
My son is at a Russell group uni studying a stem subject. His grades are on par or higher than many of the privately educated kids. He is by no means unusual for the state educated kids at the uni.
I have friends who’s children have been educated at private school and one thing that has come to light is that it at least three cases the kids have found the move from private school to uni very intimidating. They go from small classes with nearly one to one tuition to being in large classes with very little one on one tuition.
My son viewed it as just a bigger college than his six form where the class sizes in many cases were smaller.
That being said if you can afford it then why not.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Bit childish, we all get it, tell us something we don’t know?
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
Not sure about that. Academies are inspected by Ofsted (where I live anyway) whereas most private schools are inspected by the less rigorous ISI. Not that it matters of course.
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
Stumpy Tim
Well-known member
Roedean typically have 15-20 in a class. From memory, and it was 25 years ago, but my seminars at Uni were a maximum of 10 people. Undoubtedly you are sheltered a little at private school, but I'm surprised to hear that would be a problem.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
Didn’t Dianne Abbott send her sprogs to private school too.
Labour Against Private Schools was formed this week, and already includes Corbyn front benchers. Their raison d’etre, the complete abolition of all independent schools, by being forcibly converted into state schools.
There’s often hypocrisy from some of the proponents. The likes of the Miliband’s, Polly Toynbee and Oona King, either went to incredible state schools in posh bits of London and/or send their kids there. Holland Park, Hampstead and Primrose Hill are typical. Due to astonishing house prices, they are indirectly selective, the pupils have rich parents living in multi £m homes. The kids of the hoi polloi frequent the rough state comp a couple of miles away.
No guessing which schools match the results of top private schools, sending 18 year olds off to Oxbridge to study Law or PPE.
Selection by family wealth comes in many forms.
Albion Prem
Active member
If i had the cash and my son had shown promise i would have tried to get him into a private school, as the main earner in the family it would make a hell of a difference to
his families standard of living
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
I would like to see this list of the high proportion of posters on this thread who are defending (I think this is what you mean) the labour MP for sending his kid to Roedean yet who have also slagged off tory MPs for themselves being educated at Eton. Your inference is 'we' think Boris, Cameron, Mogg and others shouldn't have gone to Eton. Show me one of my such posts.....
I think that if three leading tory (or labour) recent/current leading female MPs had all been to Roedean, and were using their position to undermine state education while supporting the charitable tax deductable status of private schools, it would be reasonable to cry 'foul'.
Slagging of a tory MP for sending his son to Eton, though....majority of posters on this thread have done that? I think not.
You are as guilty as the Mail of conflating unrelated suppositions to weave a pejorative narrative.
You right wingers are all the same All of you. Fact.
If I ever have the time of inclination to trawl political threads on NSC looking for evidence I hope someone smothers me in the night to put me out of my misery!
I might give this thread a bounce one day though.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
There is nothing wrong with private education. But this is the classic hard left hypocrisy. Rage against the machine that’s it’s not ok for everyone else but it’s fine when it’s for them. It’s one of the reasons why communism failed. Full of shit. Whose the other extremist left winger who fought against private eduction the sent her son to one. That’s it. Abbott. Complete and utter trash. **** them
melias shoes
Well-known member
- Oct 14, 2010
- 4,830
Thought you might say that. Hypocrisy of the highest order and as others point out how does a union official afford it? Another champagne socialist. He slams a fetish for privatisation whilst sending his daughter to the most expensive girl school in the country. Nope no hypocrisy there! Privatisation fetish won't provide our children with good education. Except his daughter, eh? No hypocrisy? You spin it how you like. Enjoy your champagne.
Another one who struggles with simple comprehension.
The arguments over the privatisation of state schools into for-profit academies is literally NOTHING whatsoever to do with the benefits, ethics or otherwise, of independent public schools. It is utterly unrelated.
warmleyseagull
Well-known member
Read posts with interest. A lot of contrary and strongly held views.
Very surprised to see the justification of a Labour councillor paying for his child's education; yes it is his money but private education is firmly on his party's hit list of don't likes. Is he going to visit folk's houses when on the stump at the election and argue that PE should be abolished, or at least the charity exemption removed? The latter is certain to be in Manifesto, the former possible. How can he truly promote his party's policies with a clear conflict of interest?
I see nowhere the question whether the daughter herself is content with this arrangement. It is his money, but surely her happiness is more important. What does she think?
And sad to see so many resigned to 'if I had the money I would do the same'. Why? You pay your taxes, you have a right to your child's free education. What does PE actually buy? I reckon three things: smaller class sizes with more motivated teachers; better facilities; and (above all) positive peer pressure.
Unpick those : smaller class sizes are (as some posters point out) actually a real problem for many PE students at uni; better teachers I get but there are ways round this: additional tuition at a fraction of the cost of the whole package of PE being the most obvious. Better facilities similarly can be overcome by paying for specific needs: sport, drama, music, skiing holidays, again targeted and at a substantially lower cost.
Positive peer pressure is actually the biggest of the three. The problem is that this defines students into a conclave of like folk whose parents are, by definition, well off, or just happen to be fortunate enough to win a scholarship (minority). They simply don't have the life experience of encountering less advantaged students. Our youngest son is an A&E doctor in North London; his job is not easy with the ever present problem of gang warfare and its consequences, but he says that very few PE Medics even choose A&E. It becomes self selective, and means many educated privately have a blinkered view and a sheltered life (not all, just many and I accept this has been mitigated recently; mitigated but not fundamentally changed).
So support the state system. Use some intitiative and funds where it fails but don't cop out. Save yourself a lot of dough and use it wisely. Above all, ask what your children want.
Very surprised to see the justification of a Labour councillor paying for his child's education; yes it is his money but private education is firmly on his party's hit list of don't likes. Is he going to visit folk's houses when on the stump at the election and argue that PE should be abolished, or at least the charity exemption removed? The latter is certain to be in Manifesto, the former possible. How can he truly promote his party's policies with a clear conflict of interest?
I see nowhere the question whether the daughter herself is content with this arrangement. It is his money, but surely her happiness is more important. What does she think?
And sad to see so many resigned to 'if I had the money I would do the same'. Why? You pay your taxes, you have a right to your child's free education. What does PE actually buy? I reckon three things: smaller class sizes with more motivated teachers; better facilities; and (above all) positive peer pressure.
Unpick those : smaller class sizes are (as some posters point out) actually a real problem for many PE students at uni; better teachers I get but there are ways round this: additional tuition at a fraction of the cost of the whole package of PE being the most obvious. Better facilities similarly can be overcome by paying for specific needs: sport, drama, music, skiing holidays, again targeted and at a substantially lower cost.
Positive peer pressure is actually the biggest of the three. The problem is that this defines students into a conclave of like folk whose parents are, by definition, well off, or just happen to be fortunate enough to win a scholarship (minority). They simply don't have the life experience of encountering less advantaged students. Our youngest son is an A&E doctor in North London; his job is not easy with the ever present problem of gang warfare and its consequences, but he says that very few PE Medics even choose A&E. It becomes self selective, and means many educated privately have a blinkered view and a sheltered life (not all, just many and I accept this has been mitigated recently; mitigated but not fundamentally changed).
So support the state system. Use some intitiative and funds where it fails but don't cop out. Save yourself a lot of dough and use it wisely. Above all, ask what your children want.
melias shoes
Well-known member
- Oct 14, 2010
- 4,830
https://images.app.goo.gl/hFCtY1p2eqfXDPQw7Another one who struggles with simple comprehension.
The arguments over the privatisation of state schools into for-profit academies is literally NOTHING whatsoever to do with the benefits, ethics or otherwise, of independent public schools. It is utterly unrelated.
Attachments
The Large One
Who's Next?
As soon as 'Champagne Socialist' is mentioned, you know that person has absolutely no idea what they're on about. Today, it's you. It's just about the most meaningless phrase there is, devoid of an merit and intelligent forethought, and certainly not one you can back up.
Try thinking for yourself, rather than using your vast ocean of prejudices to try (and miserably fail) to score a cheap point.
Another one who struggles with simple comprehension.
The arguments over the privatisation of state schools into for-profit academies is literally NOTHING whatsoever to do with the benefits, ethics or otherwise, of independent public schools. It is utterly unrelated.
I can see it's becoming hard work for you explaining this simple concept over and over and over and over again, and yet finding easily-triggered, gullible non-thinkers failing to grasp it first, second or multiple times. To be fair, he's not the only one. I guess you could try it in Gammon-English - see if that works any better...?
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
You should. Harry and the others protesting too much. I have seen loads of anti Eton comments on here as related to Tory politicians. Yet when a Labour/Momentum politician goes the same route then it’s all fine because it was reported in the Daily Mail. That is the state of modern politics. Principles have been replaced by cheerleading for red or blue like it’s a football team.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Found your post interesting and thoughtful
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
Another one who struggles with simple comprehension.
The arguments over the privatisation of state schools into for-profit academies is literally NOTHING whatsoever to do with the benefits, ethics or otherwise, of independent public schools. It is utterly unrelated.
You’re right. So why bring it up ? The hypocrisy of which he is guilty is being Labour/Momentum ie believing in a comprehensive, inclusive education system for all (ie not giving a few people an advantage) and then sending his daughter to Roedean. It’s simple really; don’t lecture the rest of us on elitism and privilege while using one’s ‘buy to let portfolio’ to buy privilege for his own family.
melias shoes
Well-known member
- Oct 14, 2010
- 4,830
As soon as 'Champagne Socialist' is mentioned, you know that person has absolutely no idea what they're on about. Today, it's you. It's just about the most meaningless phrase there is, devoid of an merit and intelligent forethought, and certainly not one you can back up.
Try thinking for yourself, rather than using your vast ocean of prejudices to try (and miserably fail) to score a cheap point.
I can see it's becoming hard work for you explaining this simple concept over and over and over and over again, and yet finding easily-triggered, gullible non-thinkers failing to grasp it first, second or multiple times. To be fair, he's not the only one. I guess you could try it in Gammon-English - see if that works any better...?
As soon as the poster chooses to ignore the blatant obvious you know you are banging your head against a brick wall. Keep spinning.