[Politics] Corbynite councillor sends daughter to Roedean

Guinness Boy · Jul 13, 2019

Wardy's twin said:
The guy does NOT need to quote he is relatively high ranking in the labour party which advocates comprehensive schools as being the best and most fair for children. Actions speak a dam site more than a politicians words.

But unless he's personally said he's against schools like Roedean he's not a hypocrite. He's just a member of a party where he agrees with most of the policies but not all of them. That's common right across the piece. The Tories cannot agree on Brexit (and neither can Labour btw) and have had a number of different education policies over the years. The idea that you join a party and believe every word it says just reinforces terrible legislation and partisan ideas for the sake of it. It's perfectly possible to be a Labour member and send your child to private school, just as it's perfectly possible (just about) to be on the centre of the party and fighting Corbynism from within - that's what Peter Kyle does.

Yet there's a whole thread full of people that presume to know that his private and public view points are different!

Diablo · Jul 13, 2019

Wardy's twin said:
whats your ranking in the Labour party hierarchy?

Staunch BJ supporter !!

Wardy's twin · Jul 13, 2019

Diablo said:
Staunch BJ supporter !!

you no what BJ stands for??

Not Andy Naylor · Jul 13, 2019

Hampster Gull said:
They are charlatans. Btw one point in your post. We all pay for school education not just those who go private. Taxation covers it. Some chose to pay further for a choice in the education rather than be feed whatever is served up. I’m all for choice. The equality bit at the other end that some make, %age of top jobs skewed etc, is a fair one but that shouldn’t detract from an individuals right to choose.

I don't mind people choosing to spend money any way they want but as I've said, private education is mostly a waste of money unless you want to keep your precious Tarquil or Ermyntrude away from oiks and in smaller classes. Mrs Not Andy Naylor used to work in a well-known fee-paying school on Eastern Road and her head of department had no formal teaching qualification and most of the staff had antediluvian approaches to gender equality. She hated it.

Personally I'd never send any child of mine there or any other private school because I believe wholeheartedly that state education should be so good that nobody would waste money paying for the private version. And state schools are harmed if clever people like us send their clever kids to public schools, leaving the comprehensives to Palace fans and the like.

One thing I'd love to see is all public schools that aren't special needs lose their charitable status immediately.

.

Kalimantan Gull · Jul 13, 2019

It seems that being a hypocrite is one of the worst slurs there is. But what's the opposite of a hypocrite in this case? A martyr?

Our education system is not as good as it could be. In large part this is because its underfunded by governments, many of the members of which send their children to private schools and are thus unaffected by state education funding. If they were affected they may make different budget choices.

Its perfectly reasonable therfore for someone to fight for better funding for education but send their child to private school until the situation is resolved. They will be called a hypocrite but what's the alternative, wilfully give their child a worse education? The real hypocrites would be those actually in power, who can do something about stage education, doing exactly the same thing

Not Andy Naylor · Jul 13, 2019

Kalimantan Gull said:
It seems that being a hypocrite is one of the worst slurs there is. But what's the opposite of a hypocrite in this case? A martyr?

Our education system is not as good as it could be. In large part this is because its underfunded by governments, many of the members of which send their children to private schools and are thus unaffected by state education funding. If they were affected they may make different budget choices.

Its perfectly reasonable therfore for someone to fight for better funding for education but send their child to private school until the situation is resolved. They will be called a hypocrite but what's the alternative, wilfully give their child a worse education? The real hypocrites would be those actually in power, who can do something about stage education, doing exactly the same thing

Exactly. If those in power have no stake in state education, they have no motive for improving it, beyond altruism. And I think we know where relying on that will get us.

BLOCK F · Jul 13, 2019

Not Andy Naylor said:
I don't mind people choosing to spend money any way they want but as I've said, private education is mostly a waste of money unless you want to keep your precious Tarquil or Ermyntrude away from oiks and in smaller classes. Mrs Not Andy Naylor used to work in a well-known fee-paying school on Eastern Road and her head of department had no formal teaching qualification and most of the staff had antediluvian approaches to gender equality. She hated it.

Personally I'd never send any child of mine there or any other private school because I believe wholeheartedly that state education should be so good that nobody would waste money paying for the private version. And state schools are harmed if clever people like us send their clever kids to public schools, leaving the comprehensives to Palace fans and the like.

One thing I'd love to see is all public schools that aren't special needs lose their charitable status immediately.

.

'Precious Tarquin or Ermintrude'.
Ha ,what a sneering phrase.
Granted, this is off topic and things have moved on enormously since I went to a public school as a boarder in 1960, but I thought I would mention it anyway. We were 'protected from little or nothing, the regime was harsh, we had no half-term and were allowed home for just three Sundays in a twelve week term. Prefects , seventeen years old, were allowed to beat the younger boys and this always happened after lights out time in the bathroom near our bare floored dormitory that housed 47 boys. Bend over the bath in your pyjamas and take your punishment whilst four seventeen year old boys watched on as the head prefect walloped you with a slipper.We also had the fagging system where young boys were basically the slaves of the prefects.......washing clothes, cleaning shoes and studies ,running errands, cooking food etc.
I could go on and mention far more gory details, but I won't. There was little or no justice and bullying was rife in subtle and sometimes less subtle ways from both staff and senior boys. If you wanted to complain, there was no-one to complain to. We didn't really let our parents know what life was really like , probably because we just accepted it; such were the different times then.
Way off topic, I know and I apologise, but when I saw the reference to Tarquin and Ermintrude I just wanted to say that it wasn't always thus. In those days, fees were affordable by many middle class families and I didn't know any Tarquins!
Thankfully, things have changed beyond recognition and obviously for the better.
Just wanted the sneerers to know that I reckon a lot of them maybe wouldn't have been able to put up with what a lot of us, now public school old gits , lived through.More than a couple of staff from those days would have been seeing life through prison bars, if today's standards were applicable then!
Anyway, sorry for going so far off topic!

Diablo · Jul 13, 2019

Wardy's twin said:
you no what BJ stands for??

you know how to spell Know ? yes ? No ?

KNC · Jul 13, 2019

BLOCK F said:
'Precious Tarquin or Ermintrude'.
Ha ,what a sneering phrase.
Granted, this is off topic and things have moved on enormously since I went to a public school as a boarder in 1960, but I thought I would mention it anyway. We were 'protected from little or nothing, the regime was harsh, we had no half-term and were allowed home for just three Sundays in a twelve week term. Prefects , seventeen years old, were allowed to beat the younger boys and this always happened after lights out time in the bathroom near our bare floored dormitory that housed 47 boys. Bend over the bath in your pyjamas and take your punishment whilst four seventeen year old boys watched on as the head prefect walloped you with a slipper.We also had the fagging system where young boys were basically the slaves of the prefects.......washing clothes, cleaning shoes and studies ,running errands, cooking food etc.
I could go on and mention far more gory details, but I won't. There was little or no justice and bullying was rife in subtle and sometimes less subtle ways from both staff and senior boys. If you wanted to complain, there was no-one to complain to. We didn't really let our parents know what life was really like , probably because we just accepted it; such were the different times then.
Way off topic, I know and I apologise, but when I saw the reference to Tarquin and Ermintrude I just wanted to say that it wasn't always thus. In those days, fees were affordable by many middle class families and I didn't know any Tarquins!
Thankfully, things have changed beyond recognition and obviously for the better.
Just wanted the sneerers to know that I reckon a lot of them maybe wouldn't have been able to put up with what a lot of us, now public school old gits , lived through.More than a couple of staff from those days would have been seeing life through prison bars, if today's standards were applicable then!
Anyway, sorry for going so far off topic!

Don’t apologise Block F
That’s incredibly sad. Do you feel you had a ‘better’ education from it?
Have you, in later years, told your parents exactly how it was?

Hastings gull · Jul 13, 2019

Lower West Stander said:
Absolute rubbish.

You telling me that a Corbynite Labour councillor sending his daughter to Roedean isn’t hypocritical?

I don’t care if this was reported in the Daily Mail, Guardian or Tommy Robinson Weekly, it is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly -however the apologists want to muddy the waters, it is rank hypocrisy. Yet another who wants a nice socialist solution for every one else's children. I imagine has taken advice from that nice kind Mrs Abbott. No wonder it is not up for discussion.

Hastings gull · Jul 13, 2019

Kalimantan Gull said:
It seems that being a hypocrite is one of the worst slurs there is. But what's the opposite of a hypocrite in this case? A martyr?

Our education system is not as good as it could be. In large part this is because its underfunded by governments, many of the members of which send their children to private schools and are thus unaffected by state education funding. If they were affected they may make different budget choices.

Its perfectly reasonable therfore for someone to fight for better funding for education but send their child to private school until the situation is resolved. They will be called a hypocrite but what's the alternative, wilfully give their child a worse education? The real hypocrites would be those actually in power, who can do something about stage education, doing exactly the same thing

I would take issue with you on two fronts - when do you think the situation would ever be resolved? This is fantasy. And do you seriously think that even with greater investment, said councillor would think any differently? Of course he wouldn't - he just thinks that state education is fine for everybody else's kids, but doesn't want his little darling tainted by the masses.

Hampster Gull · Jul 13, 2019

Not Andy Naylor said:
I don't mind people choosing to spend money any way they want but as I've said, private education is mostly a waste of money unless you want to keep your precious Tarquil or Ermyntrude away from oiks and in smaller classes. Mrs Not Andy Naylor used to work in a well-known fee-paying school on Eastern Road and her head of department had no formal teaching qualification and most of the staff had antediluvian approaches to gender equality. She hated it.

Personally I'd never send any child of mine there or any other private school because I believe wholeheartedly that state education should be so good that nobody would waste money paying for the private version. And state schools are harmed if clever people like us send their clever kids to public schools, leaving the comprehensives to Palace fans and the like.

One thing I'd love to see is all public schools that aren't special needs lose their charitable status immediately.

.

As I’ve said, it’s about the freedom to make your own choices on how you spend your own money. You perceive it to be a waste of money but clearly there is a significant percentage of people who disagree with you. The precious Tarquil or Ermentrude comment is imo not the reason why the vast majority of 7% of kids are sent private

Not Andy Naylor · Jul 13, 2019

BLOCK F said:
'Precious Tarquin or Ermintrude'.
Ha ,what a sneering phrase.
Granted, this is off topic and things have moved on enormously since I went to a public school as a boarder in 1960, but I thought I would mention it anyway. We were 'protected from little or nothing, the regime was harsh, we had no half-term and were allowed home for just three Sundays in a twelve week term. Prefects , seventeen years old, were allowed to beat the younger boys and this always happened after lights out time in the bathroom near our bare floored dormitory that housed 47 boys. Bend over the bath in your pyjamas and take your punishment whilst four seventeen year old boys watched on as the head prefect walloped you with a slipper.We also had the fagging system where young boys were basically the slaves of the prefects.......washing clothes, cleaning shoes and studies ,running errands, cooking food etc.
I could go on and mention far more gory details, but I won't. There was little or no justice and bullying was rife in subtle and sometimes less subtle ways from both staff and senior boys. If you wanted to complain, there was no-one to complain to. We didn't really let our parents know what life was really like , probably because we just accepted it; such were the different times then.
Way off topic, I know and I apologise, but when I saw the reference to Tarquin and Ermintrude I just wanted to say that it wasn't always thus. In those days, fees were affordable by many middle class families and I didn't know any Tarquins!
Thankfully, things have changed beyond recognition and obviously for the better.
Just wanted the sneerers to know that I reckon a lot of them maybe wouldn't have been able to put up with what a lot of us, now public school old gits , lived through.More than a couple of staff from those days would have been seeing life through prison bars, if today's standards were applicable then!
Anyway, sorry for going so far off topic!

As you say, that was then. I based my post on what I know from talking to people who have experience of fee-paying schools in this century. Although I have to say 'Tarquin' was a poor choice of first name. Mrs Not Andy Naylor says there were more Sashas.

edna krabappel · Jul 13, 2019

Haven't read the whole story but he says one of his kids goes to an independent school.

Would be unusual to send one child and not the other(s), therefore perhaps there's a particular (or sensitive) reason why his daughter has gone there: perhaps something that he genuinely feels might not be addressed by her going to (or remaining at) a state school. Or maybe she's on a scholarship.

Bakero · Jul 13, 2019

Hastings gull said:
I would take issue with you on two fronts - when do you think the situation would ever be resolved? This is fantasy. And do you seriously think that even with greater investment, said councillor would think any differently? Of course he wouldn't - he just thinks that state education is fine for everybody else's kids, but doesn't want his little darling tainted by the masses.

They resolved it in Finland. What is fantasy?

Hastings gull · Jul 13, 2019

Bakero said:
They resolved it in Finland. What is fantasy?

Just like that. So simple.

BN9 BHA · Jul 13, 2019

No one gives a f***

Hastings gull · Jul 13, 2019

edna krabappel said:
Haven't read the whole story but he says one of his kids goes to an independent school.

Would be unusual to send one child and not the other(s), therefore perhaps there's a particular (or sensitive) reason why his daughter has gone there: perhaps something that he genuinely feels might not be addressed by her going to (or remaining at) a state school. Or maybe she's on a scholarship.

Yes, that may well be the case. But would he still be so sympathetic if another parent thought the same?

Hastings gull · Jul 13, 2019

Hampster Gull said:
As I’ve said, it’s about the freedom to make your own choices on how you spend your own money. You perceive it to be a waste of money but clearly there is a significant percentage of people who disagree with you. The precious Tarquil or Ermentrude comment is imo not the reason why the vast majority of 7% of kids are sent private

Exactly.

Chicken Run · Jul 13, 2019

edna krabappel said:
Haven't read the whole story but he says one of his kids goes to an independent school.

Would be unusual to send one child and not the other(s), therefore perhaps there's a particular (or sensitive) reason why his daughter has gone there: perhaps something that he genuinely feels might not be addressed by her going to (or remaining at) a state school. Or maybe she's on a scholarship.

Not unusual if the the children had different mothers?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Corbynite councillor sends daughter to Roedean

Tofu eating wokerati

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Languidly clinical

Well-known member

DOCKERS

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member Since Jul 2003

Share this page