I have cycled 24 miles today, the TdF are only doing 22 km. Amateurs.
I did a 10K run yesterday, and got my best-ever 5K time in the process. Felt absolutely fine afterwards.
Today I take a leisurely 10K jog, get home, take my sock off, and find it is filled with blood from a toenail that's immolated itself. Didn't hurt at all until I took the sock off - reminiscent of Wile E. Coyote not falling until he realises he's run off the cliff.
When Birmingham stepped up in 2017 and agreed to host last year’s Commonwealth Games, a warning was communicated from the government to the federation’s London offices that it was a rescue operation ministers would be reluctant to repeat.
The Commonwealth Games was in crisis. When the South African city of Durban was awarded the 2022 event in 2015, it was the only bidder after Edmonton in Canada had withdrawn citing financial concerns.
Two years later, however, and Durban was stripped of the rights after failing to meet requirements, with South African officials echoing their Canadian counterparts by blaming spiralling costs.
It was then that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) turned in desperation to the British when Birmingham had in fact been scheduled to host the 2026 Games. Pressure, insiders say, came from the very top, with the Palace — The Queen was the patron of the Games with Prince Edward its vice-patron — stressing the importance of the Games to the Commonwealth.
Ultimately, the British taxpayer footed the bill. The UK government committed more than £560 million to ensure the Games could go ahead, with the local council agreeing to another £190 million. Total expenditure was close to £1 billion.
But after Victoria pulled out of hosting the 2026 Games, the chances of the British saving the event again, say those same insiders, will be remote. That is because of logistical challenges as well as the optics of committing yet more public money to sport when the country remains in the grip of a cost of living crisis.
It leaves the CGF in serious danger of collapse, given how difficult it proved to find Victoria as a host in the first place.
The federation was due to announce the location of the 2026 Games in 2019. But Cardiff, Kuala Lumpur, Edmonton, Calgary and Adelaide all withdrew from the bidding process and in the end it was not until February last year, as The Times revealed at the time, that the Australian state of Victoria agreed to take it on.
You can bet your ass KCIII is doing exactly the same thing now.
It's dead if even Canada and Australia can't be arsed with it. Only solution, welcome UAE or Qatar into the commonwealth.
Or get Rwanda to host it to burnish their Commonwealth crendetionals and then when it’s over they will have loads of athlete accommodation and facilities to charge European countries to send illegal immigrants to.
And then the Mail will benefit when they can send out reporters to complain about the illegal immigrants we are paying for to enjoy Olympic pools in the sunshine whilst Albania suddenly ends up with a generation of athletes who have been using the facilities to leap to the top of the next Olympic medal table.
When Birmingham stepped up in 2017 and agreed to host last year’s Commonwealth Games, a warning was communicated from the government to the federation’s London offices that it was a rescue operation ministers would be reluctant to repeat.
The Commonwealth Games was in crisis. When the South African city of Durban was awarded the 2022 event in 2015, it was the only bidder after Edmonton in Canada had withdrawn citing financial concerns.
Two years later, however, and Durban was stripped of the rights after failing to meet requirements, with South African officials echoing their Canadian counterparts by blaming spiralling costs.
It was then that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) turned in desperation to the British when Birmingham had in fact been scheduled to host the 2026 Games. Pressure, insiders say, came from the very top, with the Palace — The Queen was the patron of the Games with Prince Edward its vice-patron — stressing the importance of the Games to the Commonwealth.
Ultimately, the British taxpayer footed the bill. The UK government committed more than £560 million to ensure the Games could go ahead, with the local council agreeing to another £190 million. Total expenditure was close to £1 billion.
But after Victoria pulled out of hosting the 2026 Games, the chances of the British saving the event again, say those same insiders, will be remote. That is because of logistical challenges as well as the optics of committing yet more public money to sport when the country remains in the grip of a cost of living crisis.
It leaves the CGF in serious danger of collapse, given how difficult it proved to find Victoria as a host in the first place.
The federation was due to announce the location of the 2026 Games in 2019. But Cardiff, Kuala Lumpur, Edmonton, Calgary and Adelaide all withdrew from the bidding process and in the end it was not until February last year, as The Times revealed at the time, that the Australian state of Victoria agreed to take it on.
Why don’t they just seriously reduce it in size so that it’s just the stuff that people might watch. Athletics etc
So it will cost £200m not £2bn
Er do people not watch other sports eg netball? Yes, yes they do
Isn't one obvious solution to regularly run the games in the same places that have hosted them during the last 20-30 years? I assume all that infrastructure hasn't just vanished...
But how would people get their 10% of the billions in funding, if their isn't billions in funding?
This is like the idea (which I agree with) of having the Olympics permanently at Olympia in Greece.
When Birmingham stepped up in 2017 and agreed to host last year’s Commonwealth Games, a warning was communicated from the government to the federation’s London offices that it was a rescue operation ministers would be reluctant to repeat.
The Commonwealth Games was in crisis. When the South African city of Durban was awarded the 2022 event in 2015, it was the only bidder after Edmonton in Canada had withdrawn citing financial concerns.
Two years later, however, and Durban was stripped of the rights after failing to meet requirements, with South African officials echoing their Canadian counterparts by blaming spiralling costs.
It was then that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) turned in desperation to the British when Birmingham had in fact been scheduled to host the 2026 Games. Pressure, insiders say, came from the very top, with the Palace — The Queen was the patron of the Games with Prince Edward its vice-patron — stressing the importance of the Games to the Commonwealth.
Ultimately, the British taxpayer footed the bill. The UK government committed more than £560 million to ensure the Games could go ahead, with the local council agreeing to another £190 million. Total expenditure was close to £1 billion.
But after Victoria pulled out of hosting the 2026 Games, the chances of the British saving the event again, say those same insiders, will be remote. That is because of logistical challenges as well as the optics of committing yet more public money to sport when the country remains in the grip of a cost of living crisis.
It leaves the CGF in serious danger of collapse, given how difficult it proved to find Victoria as a host in the first place.
The federation was due to announce the location of the 2026 Games in 2019. But Cardiff, Kuala Lumpur, Edmonton, Calgary and Adelaide all withdrew from the bidding process and in the end it was not until February last year, as The Times revealed at the time, that the Australian state of Victoria agreed to take it on.
Why don’t they just seriously reduce it in size so that it’s just the stuff that people might watch. Athletics etc
So it will cost £200m not £2bn
Er do people not watch other sports eg netball? Yes, yes they do
Because the Games are finished otherwise. Big cities are now reluctant to host the Olympics - when once they clamoured. Look at the list of upcoming hosts
Los Angeles - yawn - then Brisbane in 2032?! - yawnnnnn. Brisbane. Jeez. 2036 will probably end up in newent
So the commonwealth games are gonna be even less popular than the Olympics and if they are gonna be rescued they will have to massively downsize
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
And if you think that schools should have more resources, vote for that to happen for every child, don't simply secure it for your own child and vote for a real terms per pupil spending cut for everyone else.
But who is offering it?
Last time Labour was in power real spending per pupil went up. Under the Tories it has gone down. Draw your own conclusions.
My point is that although Labour did some steps in that direction, ultimately they still failed to make spending per pupil rise to the levels where the state sector would seriously rival private schools.
And money is now much tighter.
It would take a very bold vision to make the reforms needed to our system. I do not believe Starmer has it. Certainly Phillipson does not.
It should be better though. Labour are not wedded to the notion that private schools equal 'aspiration' and are thus to be encouraged. The Labour mindset is more that they violate equal opportunities and create a false yardstick with which to beat and depress the mainstream sector.
I think 'better' is all we can realistically expect for the moment. The per pupil funding gap, state v private, is enormous. Double to triple, I believe, something of that order. One can't imagine the education budget being increased on anything like this scale. But I'd hope (and expect) to see a raised priority (with funding to follow) under Labour cf the Conservatives.
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
That's like saying that loads of people are as fast as Jessica Ennis-Hill - once you take away the training.
The actual results achieved by the state are worse than those of the private sector. This is the fault of the state system, not the fault of the private system.
The "creaming off" claim, by the way, has been debunked. There are a plenty of pupils in the state system who should be getting their 3 A* etc.
Bags of Moe Sbihi's out there, waiting for the talent scouts...
But they aren't. This isn't because of private school mind control rays - it is because they are not being trained to their potential.
The idea that the fix is somehow to get all the BrightPrivateSchoolToffMorons to go to state schools, to just lift the attainment numbers, is to abandon those who could actually benefit from the same level of education.
Give state schools more resources and see what they can do. Right now you are simply saying that someone on a motorbike can go faster than someone who is running. Of course they can. Right now the people who are being abandoned are the kids growing up under a government that is cutting spending per pupil.
"Right now you are simply saying that someone on a motorbike can go faster than someone who is running" - no
You need to train yourself out of the "it's a con" thinking.
A well trained runner will, very often, go faster than someone who isn't well trained.
When Birmingham stepped up in 2017 and agreed to host last year’s Commonwealth Games, a warning was communicated from the government to the federation’s London offices that it was a rescue operation ministers would be reluctant to repeat.
The Commonwealth Games was in crisis. When the South African city of Durban was awarded the 2022 event in 2015, it was the only bidder after Edmonton in Canada had withdrawn citing financial concerns.
Two years later, however, and Durban was stripped of the rights after failing to meet requirements, with South African officials echoing their Canadian counterparts by blaming spiralling costs.
It was then that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) turned in desperation to the British when Birmingham had in fact been scheduled to host the 2026 Games. Pressure, insiders say, came from the very top, with the Palace — The Queen was the patron of the Games with Prince Edward its vice-patron — stressing the importance of the Games to the Commonwealth.
Ultimately, the British taxpayer footed the bill. The UK government committed more than £560 million to ensure the Games could go ahead, with the local council agreeing to another £190 million. Total expenditure was close to £1 billion.
But after Victoria pulled out of hosting the 2026 Games, the chances of the British saving the event again, say those same insiders, will be remote. That is because of logistical challenges as well as the optics of committing yet more public money to sport when the country remains in the grip of a cost of living crisis.
It leaves the CGF in serious danger of collapse, given how difficult it proved to find Victoria as a host in the first place.
The federation was due to announce the location of the 2026 Games in 2019. But Cardiff, Kuala Lumpur, Edmonton, Calgary and Adelaide all withdrew from the bidding process and in the end it was not until February last year, as The Times revealed at the time, that the Australian state of Victoria agreed to take it on.
Why don’t they just seriously reduce it in size so that it’s just the stuff that people might watch. Athletics etc
So it will cost £200m not £2bn
Er do people not watch other sports eg netball? Yes, yes they do
Isn't one obvious solution to regularly run the games in the same places that have hosted them during the last 20-30 years? I assume all that infrastructure hasn't just vanished...
They have, the athletes' village gets sold as housing about 10 mins after the games end so there is a need to build new accomodation for the athletes.
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
And if you think that schools should have more resources, vote for that to happen for every child, don't simply secure it for your own child and vote for a real terms per pupil spending cut for everyone else.
But who is offering it?
Last time Labour was in power real spending per pupil went up. Under the Tories it has gone down. Draw your own conclusions.
My point is that although Labour did some steps in that direction, ultimately they still failed to make spending per pupil rise to the levels where the state sector would seriously rival private schools.
And money is now much tighter.
It would take a very bold vision to make the reforms needed to our system. I do not believe Starmer has it. Certainly Phillipson does not.
At its closest (2009-10) the gap was 40% or so. So for the cheaper private schools, the gap must have been smaller- probably small enough to not worry about. Certainly the vibe of that time was that a lot of private schools were a waste of money in terms of pure education through the curriculum.
It's opened back out since then, mostly due to private schools being able to jack up their fees. And I don't see any government being able to do much about that, even if they wanted to.
Bottom line, there may be some meaningful seams of tax that Labour can find. But otherwise, the country has to get richer to be able to afford any nice things, and it's hard to see a sustainable path to that that gets past the electorate.
At Aber, the way emails were worked was, staff had their initials, postgrads had a double year of start next to their name (so if you started in 2005 it would be ano05) and undergrads had a single number (so ano5). It was simple and effective. (I had all three at different times.)
One day, a young lady had passed a most enjoyable evening with her boyfriend. They seem to have explored many different - ahem - avenues. And in the morning she was still buzzing and sent him an email describing it in detail and saying how much she loved him.
Alas, she forgot to put the number on the end of the email address.
Her boyfriend had the same initials as the Dean of Arts.
Fortunately, all involved had a lively sense of humour.
Ha yes. I thought that was a great system of email addresses. I was ‘xyz6’ in 1996, an address that I assume was re-used a decade later but not before.
When Birmingham stepped up in 2017 and agreed to host last year’s Commonwealth Games, a warning was communicated from the government to the federation’s London offices that it was a rescue operation ministers would be reluctant to repeat.
The Commonwealth Games was in crisis. When the South African city of Durban was awarded the 2022 event in 2015, it was the only bidder after Edmonton in Canada had withdrawn citing financial concerns.
Two years later, however, and Durban was stripped of the rights after failing to meet requirements, with South African officials echoing their Canadian counterparts by blaming spiralling costs.
It was then that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) turned in desperation to the British when Birmingham had in fact been scheduled to host the 2026 Games. Pressure, insiders say, came from the very top, with the Palace — The Queen was the patron of the Games with Prince Edward its vice-patron — stressing the importance of the Games to the Commonwealth.
Ultimately, the British taxpayer footed the bill. The UK government committed more than £560 million to ensure the Games could go ahead, with the local council agreeing to another £190 million. Total expenditure was close to £1 billion.
But after Victoria pulled out of hosting the 2026 Games, the chances of the British saving the event again, say those same insiders, will be remote. That is because of logistical challenges as well as the optics of committing yet more public money to sport when the country remains in the grip of a cost of living crisis.
It leaves the CGF in serious danger of collapse, given how difficult it proved to find Victoria as a host in the first place.
The federation was due to announce the location of the 2026 Games in 2019. But Cardiff, Kuala Lumpur, Edmonton, Calgary and Adelaide all withdrew from the bidding process and in the end it was not until February last year, as The Times revealed at the time, that the Australian state of Victoria agreed to take it on.
Why don’t they just seriously reduce it in size so that it’s just the stuff that people might watch. Athletics etc
So it will cost £200m not £2bn
Er do people not watch other sports eg netball? Yes, yes they do
Isn't one obvious solution to regularly run the games in the same places that have hosted them during the last 20-30 years? I assume all that infrastructure hasn't just vanished...
I agree that there are options to reduce projected costs, and there is an irritating tendency for sports administrators to want everything to be gleaming new whereas the viewing public are mainly interested in the competition.
But some of the infrastructure has, in a sense, "vanished". Athletes' villages will have turned into private housing, quite a few venues are temporary, stadiums tend to be sold to football teams etc.
When Birmingham stepped up in 2017 and agreed to host last year’s Commonwealth Games, a warning was communicated from the government to the federation’s London offices that it was a rescue operation ministers would be reluctant to repeat.
The Commonwealth Games was in crisis. When the South African city of Durban was awarded the 2022 event in 2015, it was the only bidder after Edmonton in Canada had withdrawn citing financial concerns.
Two years later, however, and Durban was stripped of the rights after failing to meet requirements, with South African officials echoing their Canadian counterparts by blaming spiralling costs.
It was then that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) turned in desperation to the British when Birmingham had in fact been scheduled to host the 2026 Games. Pressure, insiders say, came from the very top, with the Palace — The Queen was the patron of the Games with Prince Edward its vice-patron — stressing the importance of the Games to the Commonwealth.
Ultimately, the British taxpayer footed the bill. The UK government committed more than £560 million to ensure the Games could go ahead, with the local council agreeing to another £190 million. Total expenditure was close to £1 billion.
But after Victoria pulled out of hosting the 2026 Games, the chances of the British saving the event again, say those same insiders, will be remote. That is because of logistical challenges as well as the optics of committing yet more public money to sport when the country remains in the grip of a cost of living crisis.
It leaves the CGF in serious danger of collapse, given how difficult it proved to find Victoria as a host in the first place.
The federation was due to announce the location of the 2026 Games in 2019. But Cardiff, Kuala Lumpur, Edmonton, Calgary and Adelaide all withdrew from the bidding process and in the end it was not until February last year, as The Times revealed at the time, that the Australian state of Victoria agreed to take it on.
You can bet your ass KCIII is doing exactly the same thing now.
It's dead if even Canada and Australia can't be arsed with it. Only solution, welcome UAE or Qatar into the commonwealth.
Or get Rwanda to host it to burnish their Commonwealth crendetionals and then when it’s over they will have loads of athlete accommodation and facilities to charge European countries to send illegal immigrants to.
And then the Mail will benefit when they can send out reporters to complain about the illegal immigrants we are paying for to enjoy Olympic pools in the sunshine whilst Albania suddenly ends up with a generation of athletes who have been using the facilities to leap to the top of the next Olympic medal table.
We have a winner! Make it a Commonwealth Hunger Games where the winners get a UK passport and NI number.
The Commonwealth lacks a theme anyway, and admitting randomers like Rwanda and Mozambique makes it a complete hotchpotch.
I was meditating on KCIII's choice of Rwanda to do the mea culpa about slavery, given that it's the only African member (again except Mozambique) from which nobody ever saw the inside of a slave ship nor of a British concentration camp. Did the FO advise him he was inviting a lawsuit if he did it in Gabon or Cameroon?
Most parents want the local (state) school to be good enough. This should be achievable, but might involve spending more money. There's always going to be parents who want to buy their children a head start over most other children (even when those children probably already have a head start because they have wealthy parents). This is divisive, unfair and bad for society, and I can't see any justification for schools for rich people being charities or getting any tax breaks.
Also schools which are good at getting children through exams are not necessarily providing a good education.
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
And if you think that schools should have more resources, vote for that to happen for every child, don't simply secure it for your own child and vote for a real terms per pupil spending cut for everyone else.
But who is offering it?
Last time Labour was in power real spending per pupil went up. Under the Tories it has gone down. Draw your own conclusions.
My point is that although Labour did some steps in that direction, ultimately they still failed to make spending per pupil rise to the levels where the state sector would seriously rival private schools.
And money is now much tighter.
It would take a very bold vision to make the reforms needed to our system. I do not believe Starmer has it. Certainly Phillipson does not.
At its closest (2009-10) the gap was 40% or so. So for the cheaper private schools, the gap must have been smaller- probably small enough to not worry about. Certainly the vibe of that time was that a lot of private schools were a waste of money in terms of pure education through the curriculum.
It's opened back out since then, mostly due to private schools being able to jack up their fees. And I don't see any government being able to do much about that, even if they wanted to.
Bottom line, there may be some meaningful seams of tax that Labour can find. But otherwise, the country has to get richer to be able to afford any nice things, and it's hard to see a sustainable path to that that gets past the electorate.
Quite a lot of the differential is in facilities. A number of "cheap" private schools have been setup on the basis of education, not swimming pools etc.
It would be interesting to see some actual numbers on the cost of various class sizes, for example.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
Great header, @Cyclefree, it's baffling that this hasn't cut through more - surely everyone knows the local subpostmaster?
Really. Who on earth writes letters these days let alone go to a post office?
The scandal hjas been going on for a very long time, since 1999.
Many people were paid their pensions that way. Some still are.
Many more still have to, to get at banking and cash (ANABOBAZINA TRIGGER WARNING) because of bank closures.
And there are lots of things that can't be sent by a standard 1st or 2nd class stamp especially after RM monkeyed up the postal rates. It's just about possible to do it online but you need very accurate scales and be able to wait for the postie to collect.
Happy to oblige.
What do they need cash for?
Is it
a) to buy illegal drugs b) to take illegal drugs or c) to pay someone outside the glare of HMRC
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I like, when reading such tweets, to imagine an evangelical-style bathroom salesperson, raising their hands heavenwards and imploring: "just let that sink in - look at the curves, look at the waste, look at the taps - it will change your life"
Great header, @Cyclefree, it's baffling that this hasn't cut through more - surely everyone knows the local subpostmaster?
Not sure they do, especially in urban areas. I visit the PO in Godalming maybe twice a year to send a registered letter or a large parcel. There's always a queue and they hurry you through briskly. I've never had the chance to chat to them or find out their names, let alone whether they were affected by the scandal. Isn't that sadly typical?
Is that the PO's own estabblishment? Surely the scandal is over the subpostmasters who own their own shops? Or do I misunderstand?
No, you're right. On reflection I don't think there even is a subpostmaster in our area. I think most small towns have one, but not urban areas? Obviously that doesn't mean we shouldn't be horrified by what Cyclefree describes, but it's not personal for most people, and that probably dampens the reaction.
PS I suspect it does not help that the PO system has been so fragmented and monkeyed about by the PO - POs, both main and sub, closed apparently at random and put in this and that shop also apparently at random, over the last 20-30 years.
I'm pretty sure Post Offices are my Dictator For The Day thing.
Every parish shall have one. (OK, not the stupid microparishes you get in the centre of cities like Cambridge. But you get the idea.)
It shall be in a suitably dignified building of its own- not a counter in a corner of something else.
There shall be at least three flags outside, and a regularly planted window box or hanging basket.
It shall be a formal counter for doing all those bits of business that need a formal counter- postal, banking, local and central government.
Having made this happen, I shall resign my position. A grateful nation can build statues of me later.
It would certainly be worthy of a Rowland Hill follow-up.
Great header, @Cyclefree, it's baffling that this hasn't cut through more - surely everyone knows the local subpostmaster?
Really. Who on earth writes letters these days let alone go to a post office?
The scandal hjas been going on for a very long time, since 1999.
Many people were paid their pensions that way. Some still are.
Many more still have to, to get at banking and cash (ANABOBAZINA TRIGGER WARNING) because of bank closures.
And there are lots of things that can't be sent by a standard 1st or 2nd class stamp especially after RM monkeyed up the postal rates. It's just about possible to do it online but you need very accurate scales and be able to wait for the postie to collect.
Happy to oblige.
What do they need cash for?
Is it
a) to buy illegal drugs b) to take illegal drugs or c) to pay someone outside the glare of HMRC
?
To buy, you know, stuff like food.
Provincial plebs shouldn't buy food.
They should leave it for important people in London.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
At Aber, the way emails were worked was, staff had their initials, postgrads had a double year of start next to their name (so if you started in 2005 it would be ano05) and undergrads had a single number (so ano5). It was simple and effective. (I had all three at different times.)
One day, a young lady had passed a most enjoyable evening with her boyfriend. They seem to have explored many different - ahem - avenues. And in the morning she was still buzzing and sent him an email describing it in detail and saying how much she loved him.
Alas, she forgot to put the number on the end of the email address.
Her boyfriend had the same initials as the Dean of Arts.
Fortunately, all involved had a lively sense of humour.
Ha yes. I thought that was a great system of email addresses. I was ‘xyz6’ in 1996, an address that I assume was re-used a decade later but not before.
You have unusual names. Xavier Younas Zelensky suggests real mix of ancestry.
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
That's like saying that loads of people are as fast as Jessica Ennis-Hill - once you take away the training.
The actual results achieved by the state are worse than those of the private sector. This is the fault of the state system, not the fault of the private system.
The "creaming off" claim, by the way, has been debunked. There are a plenty of pupils in the state system who should be getting their 3 A* etc.
Bags of Moe Sbihi's out there, waiting for the talent scouts...
But they aren't. This isn't because of private school mind control rays - it is because they are not being trained to their potential.
The idea that the fix is somehow to get all the BrightPrivateSchoolToffMorons to go to state schools, to just lift the attainment numbers, is to abandon those who could actually benefit from the same level of education.
No, it's like saying that the private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil, and that if you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are, in fact, worse.
I'm not sure what your point is tbh. Let's forget about 'Jessica Ennis Hill' for a second and consider 3 things that could explain the 'better' results of private schools.
1. Much higher funding. 2. An advantaged intake. 3. Superior teachers and teaching practices.
Are you seriously claiming it's mainly 3 rather than almost exclusively 1 and 2?
When Birmingham stepped up in 2017 and agreed to host last year’s Commonwealth Games, a warning was communicated from the government to the federation’s London offices that it was a rescue operation ministers would be reluctant to repeat.
The Commonwealth Games was in crisis. When the South African city of Durban was awarded the 2022 event in 2015, it was the only bidder after Edmonton in Canada had withdrawn citing financial concerns.
Two years later, however, and Durban was stripped of the rights after failing to meet requirements, with South African officials echoing their Canadian counterparts by blaming spiralling costs.
It was then that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) turned in desperation to the British when Birmingham had in fact been scheduled to host the 2026 Games. Pressure, insiders say, came from the very top, with the Palace — The Queen was the patron of the Games with Prince Edward its vice-patron — stressing the importance of the Games to the Commonwealth.
Ultimately, the British taxpayer footed the bill. The UK government committed more than £560 million to ensure the Games could go ahead, with the local council agreeing to another £190 million. Total expenditure was close to £1 billion.
But after Victoria pulled out of hosting the 2026 Games, the chances of the British saving the event again, say those same insiders, will be remote. That is because of logistical challenges as well as the optics of committing yet more public money to sport when the country remains in the grip of a cost of living crisis.
It leaves the CGF in serious danger of collapse, given how difficult it proved to find Victoria as a host in the first place.
The federation was due to announce the location of the 2026 Games in 2019. But Cardiff, Kuala Lumpur, Edmonton, Calgary and Adelaide all withdrew from the bidding process and in the end it was not until February last year, as The Times revealed at the time, that the Australian state of Victoria agreed to take it on.
Why don’t they just seriously reduce it in size so that it’s just the stuff that people might watch. Athletics etc
So it will cost £200m not £2bn
Er do people not watch other sports eg netball? Yes, yes they do
Because the Games are finished otherwise. Big cities are now reluctant to host the Olympics - when once they clamoured. Look at the list of upcoming hosts
Los Angeles - yawn - then Brisbane in 2032?! - yawnnnnn. Brisbane. Jeez. 2036 will probably end up in newent
So the commonwealth games are gonna be even less popular than the Olympics and if they are gonna be rescued they will have to massively downsize
2036 will be Riyadh, in winter. Because no-one else wants to spend the money.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
Yes, you can mute any phrase you like under 'settings'.
Great header, @Cyclefree, it's baffling that this hasn't cut through more - surely everyone knows the local subpostmaster?
Not sure they do, especially in urban areas. I visit the PO in Godalming maybe twice a year to send a registered letter or a large parcel. There's always a queue and they hurry you through briskly. I've never had the chance to chat to them or find out their names, let alone whether they were affected by the scandal. Isn't that sadly typical?
Is that the PO's own estabblishment? Surely the scandal is over the subpostmasters who own their own shops? Or do I misunderstand?
No, you're right. On reflection I don't think there even is a subpostmaster in our area. I think most small towns have one, but not urban areas? Obviously that doesn't mean we shouldn't be horrified by what Cyclefree describes, but it's not personal for most people, and that probably dampens the reaction.
PS I suspect it does not help that the PO system has been so fragmented and monkeyed about by the PO - POs, both main and sub, closed apparently at random and put in this and that shop also apparently at random, over the last 20-30 years.
I'm pretty sure Post Offices are my Dictator For The Day thing.
Every parish shall have one. (OK, not the stupid microparishes you get in the centre of cities like Cambridge. But you get the idea.)
It shall be in a suitably dignified building of its own- not a counter in a corner of something else.
There shall be at least three flags outside, and a regularly planted window box or hanging basket.
It shall be a formal counter for doing all those bits of business that need a formal counter- postal, banking, local and central government.
Having made this happen, I shall resign my position. A grateful nation can build statues of me later.
One further thought. Younger PBers might not realise that that is the system we used to have, within living memory. National Savings and the Post Office Bank. Passports, driving licences, dog licences, parcels weighed and sent, all that stuff. Telegrams sent and received. By trained staff. In every village or urban district. Full range, unlike modern sub POs which seem to nbe almost random what they do and don't do. And paid for in things like "pence" and "shillings".
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
There are some apparent ethnic group differences in Covid effects, e.g. some ethnic minorities in UK apparently worse hit (although it's hard to disentangle those from deprivation and employment risk profiles).
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
Great header, @Cyclefree, it's baffling that this hasn't cut through more - surely everyone knows the local subpostmaster?
Really. Who on earth writes letters these days let alone go to a post office?
The scandal hjas been going on for a very long time, since 1999.
Many people were paid their pensions that way. Some still are.
Many more still have to, to get at banking and cash (ANABOBAZINA TRIGGER WARNING) because of bank closures.
And there are lots of things that can't be sent by a standard 1st or 2nd class stamp especially after RM monkeyed up the postal rates. It's just about possible to do it online but you need very accurate scales and be able to wait for the postie to collect.
Happy to oblige.
What do they need cash for?
Is it
a) to buy illegal drugs b) to take illegal drugs or c) to pay someone outside the glare of HMRC
?
To buy, you know, stuff like food.
Provincial plebs shouldn't buy food.
They should leave it for important people in London.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
But those are exceptionally silly conspiracy theories
How about
JFK Royal pedo island UFO Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
I actually work for a company, still owned by the founding family. One of whom was one of the founders of the Bavarian Illuminati.
Between that and being a half Jewish, ex-FreeMason, you'd think... But no.
Great header, @Cyclefree, it's baffling that this hasn't cut through more - surely everyone knows the local subpostmaster?
Not sure they do, especially in urban areas. I visit the PO in Godalming maybe twice a year to send a registered letter or a large parcel. There's always a queue and they hurry you through briskly. I've never had the chance to chat to them or find out their names, let alone whether they were affected by the scandal. Isn't that sadly typical?
Is that the PO's own estabblishment? Surely the scandal is over the subpostmasters who own their own shops? Or do I misunderstand?
No, you're right. On reflection I don't think there even is a subpostmaster in our area. I think most small towns have one, but not urban areas? Obviously that doesn't mean we shouldn't be horrified by what Cyclefree describes, but it's not personal for most people, and that probably dampens the reaction.
PS I suspect it does not help that the PO system has been so fragmented and monkeyed about by the PO - POs, both main and sub, closed apparently at random and put in this and that shop also apparently at random, over the last 20-30 years.
I'm pretty sure Post Offices are my Dictator For The Day thing.
Every parish shall have one. (OK, not the stupid microparishes you get in the centre of cities like Cambridge. But you get the idea.)
It shall be in a suitably dignified building of its own- not a counter in a corner of something else.
There shall be at least three flags outside, and a regularly planted window box or hanging basket.
It shall be a formal counter for doing all those bits of business that need a formal counter- postal, banking, local and central government.
Having made this happen, I shall resign my position. A grateful nation can build statues of me later.
One further thought. Younger PBers might not realise that that is the system we used to have, within living memory. National Savings and the Post Office Bank. Passports, driving licences, dog licences, parcels weighed and sent, all that stuff. Telegrams sent and received. By trained staff. In every village or urban district. Full range, unlike modern sub POs which seem to nbe almost random what they do and don't do. And paid for in things like "pence" and "shillings".
And what would happen in these buildings, when their one customer a day is gone?
The village shop is a nice idea. But unless you subsidise it massively, it will die.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
There are some apparent ethnic group differences in Covid effects, e.g. some ethnic minorities in UK apparently worse hit (although it's hard to disentangle those from deprivation and employment risk profiles).
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
East Asians (Hong Kong and Hubei apart) likely did better because of less obesity, more mask wearing, and more introverted and dutiful societies
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
There are some apparent ethnic group differences in Covid effects, e.g. some ethnic minorities in UK apparently worse hit (although it's hard to disentangle those from deprivation and employment risk profiles).
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
East Asians (Hong Kong and Hubei apart) likely did better because of less obesity, more mask wearing, and more introverted and dutiful societies
Indeed. The virus was engineered to target obese, non-mask wearing non-dutiful extroverts!
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
There are some apparent ethnic group differences in Covid effects, e.g. some ethnic minorities in UK apparently worse hit (although it's hard to disentangle those from deprivation and employment risk profiles).
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
East Asians (Hong Kong and Hubei apart) likely did better because of less obesity, more mask wearing, and more introverted and dutiful societies
Indeed. The virus was engineered to target obese, non-mask wearing non-dutiful extroverts!
Great header, @Cyclefree, it's baffling that this hasn't cut through more - surely everyone knows the local subpostmaster?
Not sure they do, especially in urban areas. I visit the PO in Godalming maybe twice a year to send a registered letter or a large parcel. There's always a queue and they hurry you through briskly. I've never had the chance to chat to them or find out their names, let alone whether they were affected by the scandal. Isn't that sadly typical?
Is that the PO's own estabblishment? Surely the scandal is over the subpostmasters who own their own shops? Or do I misunderstand?
No, you're right. On reflection I don't think there even is a subpostmaster in our area. I think most small towns have one, but not urban areas? Obviously that doesn't mean we shouldn't be horrified by what Cyclefree describes, but it's not personal for most people, and that probably dampens the reaction.
PS I suspect it does not help that the PO system has been so fragmented and monkeyed about by the PO - POs, both main and sub, closed apparently at random and put in this and that shop also apparently at random, over the last 20-30 years.
I'm pretty sure Post Offices are my Dictator For The Day thing.
Every parish shall have one. (OK, not the stupid microparishes you get in the centre of cities like Cambridge. But you get the idea.)
It shall be in a suitably dignified building of its own- not a counter in a corner of something else.
There shall be at least three flags outside, and a regularly planted window box or hanging basket.
It shall be a formal counter for doing all those bits of business that need a formal counter- postal, banking, local and central government.
Having made this happen, I shall resign my position. A grateful nation can build statues of me later.
One further thought. Younger PBers might not realise that that is the system we used to have, within living memory. National Savings and the Post Office Bank. Passports, driving licences, dog licences, parcels weighed and sent, all that stuff. Telegrams sent and received. By trained staff. In every village or urban district. Full range, unlike modern sub POs which seem to nbe almost random what they do and don't do. And paid for in things like "pence" and "shillings".
Also on the list of What the Post Office Shall Be:
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
There are some apparent ethnic group differences in Covid effects, e.g. some ethnic minorities in UK apparently worse hit (although it's hard to disentangle those from deprivation and employment risk profiles).
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
That sounds at least possible.
Of course, as Leon indicates, the real madness comes from the casual "and therefore..." in conspiracy theories.
That a particular disease might on average affect different ethnic groups slightly differently due to genetic differences isn't terribly novel or surprising. The idea that this should be taken seriously as evidence that a disease has been engineered by members of a group that is relatively less impacted (although not in any way immune) is, on the other hand, absolutely nuts.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
But those are exceptionally silly conspiracy theories
How about
JFK Royal pedo island UFO Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
I'm going to make your day. Of those 4 there is just the one that has a decent chance of being true. Lab Leak!
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
That's like saying that loads of people are as fast as Jessica Ennis-Hill - once you take away the training.
The actual results achieved by the state are worse than those of the private sector. This is the fault of the state system, not the fault of the private system.
The "creaming off" claim, by the way, has been debunked. There are a plenty of pupils in the state system who should be getting their 3 A* etc.
Bags of Moe Sbihi's out there, waiting for the talent scouts...
But they aren't. This isn't because of private school mind control rays - it is because they are not being trained to their potential.
The idea that the fix is somehow to get all the BrightPrivateSchoolToffMorons to go to state schools, to just lift the attainment numbers, is to abandon those who could actually benefit from the same level of education.
No, it's like saying that the private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil, and that if you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are, in fact, worse.
I'm not sure what your point is tbh. Let's forget about 'Jessica Ennis Hill' for a second and consider 3 things that could explain the 'better' results of private schools.
1. Much higher funding. 2. An advantaged intake. 3. Superior teachers and teaching practices.
Are you seriously claiming it's mainly 3 rather than almost exclusively 1 and 2?
It's 1. Combined with a chunk of 3 - mainly about letting teachers teach effectively. The teachers are the same humans, and not paid that differently.
There are far more bright pupils out there, in the state system, than could fill the whole private system x times over.
The ones who practically teach themselves are fine, in the current states schools. Except when they are attending St Stabington's. Where avoiding being stabbed is an issue.
It's the ones who need help and encouragement to progress who are being left behind.
Talking of talent discovered... Having talked to Moe Sbihi - if he hadn't been found by a talent scout, he would be working at the local Tesco, like his friends. Probably no A levels, he said.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
There are some apparent ethnic group differences in Covid effects, e.g. some ethnic minorities in UK apparently worse hit (although it's hard to disentangle those from deprivation and employment risk profiles).
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
That sounds at least possible.
Of course, as Leon indicates, the real madness comes from the casual "and therefore..." in conspiracy theories.
That a particular disease might on average affect different ethnic groups slightly differently due to genetic differences isn't terribly novel or surprising. The idea that this should be taken seriously as evidence that a disease has been engineered by members of a group that is relatively less impacted (although not in any way immune) is, on the other hand, absolutely nuts.
Yes it’s the massive non sequiturs and enormous logical leaps which mark out classic conspiracy theories. There is normally a tiny nugget of *something* which kicks them off
eg The Rothschilds were enormously powerful in 19th century Europe and actually did operate quite secretive networks across the continent. Bailing out monarchs etc
This does not mean they are now running the entire world and giving us special water laced with bio-atomic drugs
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
There are some apparent ethnic group differences in Covid effects, e.g. some ethnic minorities in UK apparently worse hit (although it's hard to disentangle those from deprivation and employment risk profiles).
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
East Asians (Hong Kong and Hubei apart) likely did better because of less obesity, more mask wearing, and more introverted and dutiful societies
Indeed. The virus was engineered to target obese, non-mask wearing non-dutiful extroverts!
Drunken Brits then. Ah. I see your point
'They' are out to get us.
And old people, of course. Which rules out Conservative party involvement, at least.
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
Wiki says Italian grandparents x 4, and his school and first college were Jesuit-run. But I can't think what else she means other than what you wonder.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
But those are exceptionally silly conspiracy theories
How about
JFK Royal pedo island UFO Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
I'm going to make your day. Of those 4 there is just the one that has a decent chance of being true. Lab Leak!
You honestly don’t think there was a conspiracy to take out JFK?
It likely involved organised crime - mafia - and some low level government intel enemies of jfk
And it’s hard to deny Prince Andrew went to Pedo Island. That’s literally what he did
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
I think so.
However he's Italian/Swiss heritage.
There's also this conspiracy theory that says the Rothschilds invented Covid-19 and made trillions from the vaccine. Said Rothschilds virus was designed to not infect Jews.
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
Wiki says Italian grandparents x 4, and his school and first college were Jesuit-run. But I can't think what else she means other than what you wonder.
"Jesuit" - that sounds a bit Jewish, doesn't it. If you say it fast and are a dribbling racist moron.... Hmmm.... Jesuit Space Lasers.....
Said morons very often have a thing about Jesuits as well.
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
I think so.
However he's Italian/Swiss heritage.
There's also this conspiracy theory that says the Rothschilds invented Covid-19 and made trillions from the vaccine. Said Rothschilds virus was designed to not infect Jews.
On that last point, it's obviously a shite job of virus design: just noticed this
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
I think so.
However he's Italian/Swiss heritage.
There's also this conspiracy theory that says the Rothschilds invented Covid-19 and made trillions from the vaccine. Said Rothschilds virus was designed to not infect Jews.
On that last point, it's obviously a shite job of virus design: just noticed this
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
But those are exceptionally silly conspiracy theories
How about
JFK Royal pedo island UFO Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
I'm going to make your day. Of those 4 there is just the one that has a decent chance of being true. Lab Leak!
Stephen Hunter - who does the bob Lee Swagger series and also a number of other excellent sniper-themed novels - wrote a novel cum investigation about the JFK shooting, His main points against the Warren Commission report, which he explains very well, is that (1) the damage claimed to have been caused by the bullet (passing through JFK, hitting Connolly) was almost impossible given the weak velocity of the 6,5mm round and (2) the ballistic testers could not repeat Oswald's aims without using a sight adjustment (or shiv) that has never been found.
It may not be a conspiracy theory but the ballistics evidence presented by Hunter - and he is not a crank - suggests that the official version re JFK is almost certainly untrue.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’m sure there is. I’ve blocked ‘#FBPE’, ‘#loveisland’ and ‘#corbyn’
When Birmingham stepped up in 2017 and agreed to host last year’s Commonwealth Games, a warning was communicated from the government to the federation’s London offices that it was a rescue operation ministers would be reluctant to repeat.
The Commonwealth Games was in crisis. When the South African city of Durban was awarded the 2022 event in 2015, it was the only bidder after Edmonton in Canada had withdrawn citing financial concerns.
Two years later, however, and Durban was stripped of the rights after failing to meet requirements, with South African officials echoing their Canadian counterparts by blaming spiralling costs.
It was then that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) turned in desperation to the British when Birmingham had in fact been scheduled to host the 2026 Games. Pressure, insiders say, came from the very top, with the Palace — The Queen was the patron of the Games with Prince Edward its vice-patron — stressing the importance of the Games to the Commonwealth.
Ultimately, the British taxpayer footed the bill. The UK government committed more than £560 million to ensure the Games could go ahead, with the local council agreeing to another £190 million. Total expenditure was close to £1 billion.
But after Victoria pulled out of hosting the 2026 Games, the chances of the British saving the event again, say those same insiders, will be remote. That is because of logistical challenges as well as the optics of committing yet more public money to sport when the country remains in the grip of a cost of living crisis.
It leaves the CGF in serious danger of collapse, given how difficult it proved to find Victoria as a host in the first place.
The federation was due to announce the location of the 2026 Games in 2019. But Cardiff, Kuala Lumpur, Edmonton, Calgary and Adelaide all withdrew from the bidding process and in the end it was not until February last year, as The Times revealed at the time, that the Australian state of Victoria agreed to take it on.
Why don’t they just seriously reduce it in size so that it’s just the stuff that people might watch. Athletics etc
So it will cost £200m not £2bn
Er do people not watch other sports eg netball? Yes, yes they do
Isn't one obvious solution to regularly run the games in the same places that have hosted them during the last 20-30 years? I assume all that infrastructure hasn't just vanished...
I agree that there are options to reduce projected costs, and there is an irritating tendency for sports administrators to want everything to be gleaming new whereas the viewing public are mainly interested in the competition.
But some of the infrastructure has, in a sense, "vanished". Athletes' villages will have turned into private housing, quite a few venues are temporary, stadiums tend to be sold to football teams etc.
An important argument gets forgotten. There is no obvious reason why a single farthing of the money of any state on the planet should be spent on sport. Nearly all of it should be amateur fun; the rest can look after itself. Capitalism can engage if it likes. Sport is great, but the billions of tax payers money is a scam.
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
Wiki says Italian grandparents x 4, and his school and first college were Jesuit-run. But I can't think what else she means other than what you wonder.
"Jesuit" - that sounds a bit Jewish, doesn't it. If you say it fast and are a dribbling racist moron.... Hmmm.... Jesuit Space Lasers.....
Said morons very often have a thing about Jesuits as well.
I wouldn't want to be a soil expert, either. Imagine working in an Institute of Pedology or driving the van.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
There are some apparent ethnic group differences in Covid effects, e.g. some ethnic minorities in UK apparently worse hit (although it's hard to disentangle those from deprivation and employment risk profiles).
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
That sounds at least possible.
Of course, as Leon indicates, the real madness comes from the casual "and therefore..." in conspiracy theories.
That a particular disease might on average affect different ethnic groups slightly differently due to genetic differences isn't terribly novel or surprising. The idea that this should be taken seriously as evidence that a disease has been engineered by members of a group that is relatively less impacted (although not in any way immune) is, on the other hand, absolutely nuts.
Yes it’s the massive non sequiturs and enormous logical leaps which mark out classic conspiracy theories. There is normally a tiny nugget of *something* which kicks them off
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
But those are exceptionally silly conspiracy theories
How about
JFK Royal pedo island UFO Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
I'm going to make your day. Of those 4 there is just the one that has a decent chance of being true. Lab Leak!
You honestly don’t think there was a conspiracy to take out JFK?
It likely involved organised crime - mafia - and some low level government intel enemies of jfk
And it’s hard to deny Prince Andrew went to Pedo Island. That’s literally what he did
Oswald was a noted hater of JFK. Who'd voiced violent ideas on a number of occasions. Who knew how to shoot and the rifle he had was perfectly capable of the hitting the target.
Ironically, the clincher is the so-called Magic Bullet. If you build a 3D model of where everyone was, in the limo, when they were hit, the bullet holes in each person line up almost perfectly. And give a very accurate pointer to where the gunman was.
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
And if you think that schools should have more resources, vote for that to happen for every child, don't simply secure it for your own child and vote for a real terms per pupil spending cut for everyone else.
But who is offering it?
Last time Labour was in power real spending per pupil went up. Under the Tories it has gone down. Draw your own conclusions.
My point is that although Labour did some steps in that direction, ultimately they still failed to make spending per pupil rise to the levels where the state sector would seriously rival private schools.
And money is now much tighter.
It would take a very bold vision to make the reforms needed to our system. I do not believe Starmer has it. Certainly Phillipson does not.
Yes you are probably right. Education isn't a priority especially as many of those for whom it is a priority have opted out of the regular school system and vote for parties that cut schools spending. But equally I am sure that education is much more of a priority for Labour than for the Tories and that is a major motivation for me to vote Labour, as it is for many people. Which party do people with school age children vote for?
Plenty of Labour MPs educate their children privately. And who can forget Harriet Harman who sent her child from Dulwich to St Olaves Grammar a super selective grammar. She had the gall to say she wanted every state school to be like St Olaves!😂
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
But those are exceptionally silly conspiracy theories
How about
JFK Royal pedo island UFO Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
I'm going to make your day. Of those 4 there is just the one that has a decent chance of being true. Lab Leak!
Stephen Hunter - who does the bob Lee Swagger series and also a number of other excellent sniper-themed novels - wrote a novel cum investigation about the JFK shooting, His main points against the Warren Commission report, which he explains very well, is that (1) the damage claimed to have been caused by the bullet (passing through JFK, hitting Connolly) was almost impossible given the weak velocity of the 6,5mm round and (2) the ballistic testers could not repeat Oswald's aims without using a sight adjustment (or shiv) that has never been found.
It may not be a conspiracy theory but the ballistics evidence presented by Hunter - and he is not a crank - suggests that the official version re JFK is almost certainly untrue.
A very level headed, skeptical, pragmatic and intelligent friend of mine once spent 6 months investigating the JFK story for a TV series. He came at it with total neutrality and read everything you can read. He was well paid to do this
His conclusion: yes, a loose conspiracy. Organised crime deeply implicated, plus a few other people upset by various positions taken by JFK
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
There are some apparent ethnic group differences in Covid effects, e.g. some ethnic minorities in UK apparently worse hit (although it's hard to disentangle those from deprivation and employment risk profiles).
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
That sounds at least possible.
Of course, as Leon indicates, the real madness comes from the casual "and therefore..." in conspiracy theories.
That a particular disease might on average affect different ethnic groups slightly differently due to genetic differences isn't terribly novel or surprising. The idea that this should be taken seriously as evidence that a disease has been engineered by members of a group that is relatively less impacted (although not in any way immune) is, on the other hand, absolutely nuts.
Yes it’s the massive non sequiturs and enormous logical leaps which mark out classic conspiracy theories. There is normally a tiny nugget of *something* which kicks them off
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
But those are exceptionally silly conspiracy theories
How about
JFK Royal pedo island UFO Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
I'm going to make your day. Of those 4 there is just the one that has a decent chance of being true. Lab Leak!
You honestly don’t think there was a conspiracy to take out JFK?
It likely involved organised crime - mafia - and some low level government intel enemies of jfk
And it’s hard to deny Prince Andrew went to Pedo Island. That’s literally what he did
Oswald was a noted hater of JFK. Who'd voiced violent ideas on a number of occasions. Who knew how to shoot and the rifle he had was perfectly capable of the hitting the target.
Ironically, the clincher is the so-called Magic Bullet. If you build a 3D model of where everyone was, in the limo, when they were hit, the bullet holes in each person line up almost perfectly. And give a very accurate pointer to where the gunman was.
In the window of the Book Depository.
I’ve no idea. I can’t be arsed to read all the bumf
But I am - as I say upthread - convinced by some highly intelligent people - who I trust - who HAVE taken the time
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
That's like saying that loads of people are as fast as Jessica Ennis-Hill - once you take away the training.
The actual results achieved by the state are worse than those of the private sector. This is the fault of the state system, not the fault of the private system.
The "creaming off" claim, by the way, has been debunked. There are a plenty of pupils in the state system who should be getting their 3 A* etc.
Bags of Moe Sbihi's out there, waiting for the talent scouts...
But they aren't. This isn't because of private school mind control rays - it is because they are not being trained to their potential.
The idea that the fix is somehow to get all the BrightPrivateSchoolToffMorons to go to state schools, to just lift the attainment numbers, is to abandon those who could actually benefit from the same level of education.
No, it's like saying that the private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil, and that if you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are, in fact, worse.
I'm not sure what your point is tbh. Let's forget about 'Jessica Ennis Hill' for a second and consider 3 things that could explain the 'better' results of private schools.
1. Much higher funding. 2. An advantaged intake. 3. Superior teachers and teaching practices.
Are you seriously claiming it's mainly 3 rather than almost exclusively 1 and 2?
It's 1. Combined with a chunk of 3 - mainly about letting teachers teach effectively. The teachers are the same humans, and not paid that differently.
There are far more bright pupils out there, in the state system, than could fill the whole private system x times over.
The ones who practically teach themselves are fine, in the current states schools. Except when they are attending St Stabington's. Where avoiding being stabbed is an issue.
It's the ones who need help and encouragement to progress who are being left behind.
Talking of talent discovered... Having talked to Moe Sbihi - if he hadn't been found by a talent scout, he would be working at the local Tesco, like his friends. Probably no A levels, he said.
Ok so we agree the higher funding - hence smaller classes and superior facilities - is key to the 'better' results. Tick.
As to the other material factor, do you truly believe it's more about better teaching than the advantaged intake? To me it's dropdown obvious that the pupil intake has a big impact on results achieved. Why do you think otherwise?
And where are you getting that belief from, that private school teaching is better? Most people I know in the teaching game (both sectors) say the opposite if anything.
for what it's worth, PB's own peripatetic traveler is now just 600k from Chernivtsi, Ukraine, aka Chernowitz, Bukovina.
Which, back in the day when the Hapsburgs were coloring a large swath of central/eastern Europe imperial yellow, was the easternmost outpost of the Austrian half of the Dual Monarchy.
Am mentioning this, because today's NYT features interesting feature about Chernivtsi, which is far from the battle fronts (including Kyiv) and is an oasis of relative peace - relatively speaking for a nation at war.
Urge those of you who can access to check it out:
CHERNIVTSI DISPATCH
Far From the Front, They Stand in Honor of Ukraine The city of Chernivtsi in western Ukraine has been spared the mayhem of the Russian invasion. But like other towns in the region, it is doing its part, and has become, in effect, a back office of the war effort.
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
Wiki says Italian grandparents x 4, and his school and first college were Jesuit-run. But I can't think what else she means other than what you wonder.
"Jesuit" - that sounds a bit Jewish, doesn't it. If you say it fast and are a dribbling racist moron.... Hmmm.... Jesuit Space Lasers.....
Said morons very often have a thing about Jesuits as well.
She’s just rehashing what RFK Jr said earlier in the week.
Which should hopefully be the end of any political aspirations he has.
I’d like to hope her station and colleagues will distance themselves from her.
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
That's like saying that loads of people are as fast as Jessica Ennis-Hill - once you take away the training.
The actual results achieved by the state are worse than those of the private sector. This is the fault of the state system, not the fault of the private system.
The "creaming off" claim, by the way, has been debunked. There are a plenty of pupils in the state system who should be getting their 3 A* etc.
Bags of Moe Sbihi's out there, waiting for the talent scouts...
But they aren't. This isn't because of private school mind control rays - it is because they are not being trained to their potential.
The idea that the fix is somehow to get all the BrightPrivateSchoolToffMorons to go to state schools, to just lift the attainment numbers, is to abandon those who could actually benefit from the same level of education.
No, it's like saying that the private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil, and that if you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are, in fact, worse.
I'm not sure what your point is tbh. Let's forget about 'Jessica Ennis Hill' for a second and consider 3 things that could explain the 'better' results of private schools.
1. Much higher funding. 2. An advantaged intake. 3. Superior teachers and teaching practices.
Are you seriously claiming it's mainly 3 rather than almost exclusively 1 and 2?
It's 1. Combined with a chunk of 3 - mainly about letting teachers teach effectively. The teachers are the same humans, and not paid that differently.
There are far more bright pupils out there, in the state system, than could fill the whole private system x times over.
The ones who practically teach themselves are fine, in the current states schools. Except when they are attending St Stabington's. Where avoiding being stabbed is an issue.
It's the ones who need help and encouragement to progress who are being left behind.
Talking of talent discovered... Having talked to Moe Sbihi - if he hadn't been found by a talent scout, he would be working at the local Tesco, like his friends. Probably no A levels, he said.
Ok so we agree the higher funding - hence smaller classes and superior facilities - is key to the 'better' results. Tick.
As to the other material factor, do you truly believe it's more about better teaching than the advantaged intake? To me it's dropdown obvious that the pupil intake has a big impact on results achieved. Why do you dispute this?
And where are you getting that belief from, that private school teachers are better? Most people I know in the teaching game (both sectors) say the opposite if anything.
The biggest skew is from excluding those who don't want to be there. It is notable that the state schools that achieve high academic results (some as good as any private school) exclude the problematic pupils by various mechanisms.
Not that they are better teachers - just that they are (often) given more freedom to teach effectively.
Most parents want the local (state) school to be good enough. This should be achievable, but might involve spending more money. There's always going to be parents who want to buy their children a head start over most other children (even when those children probably already have a head start because they have wealthy parents). This is divisive, unfair and bad for society, and I can't see any justification for schools for rich people being charities or getting any tax breaks.
Also schools which are good at getting children through exams are not necessarily providing a good education.
I well remember one Labour leader who wanted to close Grammar schools yet provided private coaching for his A Levels for young Euan Blair. You're right, there's always those parents.... . It just sticks in the throat when they lecture the rest of us. Of course it doesn't always work does it Diane? Labour # hypocrisy rules.
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
I think so.
However he's Italian/Swiss heritage.
There's also this conspiracy theory that says the Rothschilds invented Covid-19 and made trillions from the vaccine. Said Rothschilds virus was designed to not infect Jews.
I thought these morons couldn't match their Soros was an SS officer crap, but they're getting there.
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
I think so.
However he's Italian/Swiss heritage.
There's also this conspiracy theory that says the Rothschilds invented Covid-19 and made trillions from the vaccine. Said Rothschilds virus was designed to not infect Jews.
I thought these morons couldn't match their Soros was an SS officer crap, but they're getting there.
Plans to kill off Hundred and Blast – and launch new competition
Threat of Major League Cricket has forced ECB and counties to discuss radical solutions
The T20 Blast and the Hundred could be disbanded and replaced with one short-form competition under radical proposals due to be discussed between the ECB and county chiefs this autumn.
There are growing concerns that the domestic schedule, which has two premier short-form competitions, does not work and that the Hundred will not be able to compete with other T20 franchise leagues — particularly with the advent of Major League Cricket in America, which is due to expand next year and likely to clash with both the Blast and The Hundred while offering more valuable contracts.
The ECB and the counties are set to take another look at the future of the domestic calendar after the end of the season. One proposal, which has growing support, is to scrap the eight Hundred teams and the 100-ball format and replace it with a T20 league featuring the 18 counties — and perhaps some of the National (formerly minor) Counties — but with a different ownership model that allows for private investment.
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
I think so.
However he's Italian/Swiss heritage.
There's also this conspiracy theory that says the Rothschilds invented Covid-19 and made trillions from the vaccine. Said Rothschilds virus was designed to not infect Jews.
I thought these morons couldn't match their Soros was an SS officer crap, but they're getting there.
They are outdoing themselves.
One of my 'favourite' conspiracy theories is the Jews are looking to replace good old Anglo Saxons in the West with Muslims.
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
Did Coutts actually claim that he fell below the threshold or was it just a case of the BBC and FT misreporting it for their own reasons?
Plans to kill off Hundred and Blast – and launch new competition
Threat of Major League Cricket has forced ECB and counties to discuss radical solutions
The T20 Blast and the Hundred could be disbanded and replaced with one short-form competition under radical proposals due to be discussed between the ECB and county chiefs this autumn.
There are growing concerns that the domestic schedule, which has two premier short-form competitions, does not work and that the Hundred will not be able to compete with other T20 franchise leagues — particularly with the advent of Major League Cricket in America, which is due to expand next year and likely to clash with both the Blast and The Hundred while offering more valuable contracts.
The ECB and the counties are set to take another look at the future of the domestic calendar after the end of the season. One proposal, which has growing support, is to scrap the eight Hundred teams and the 100-ball format and replace it with a T20 league featuring the 18 counties — and perhaps some of the National (formerly minor) Counties — but with a different ownership model that allows for private investment.
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
I think so.
However he's Italian/Swiss heritage.
There's also this conspiracy theory that says the Rothschilds invented Covid-19 and made trillions from the vaccine. Said Rothschilds virus was designed to not infect Jews.
I thought these morons couldn't match their Soros was an SS officer crap, but they're getting there.
They are outdoing themselves.
One of my 'favourite' conspiracy theories is the Jews are looking to replace good old Anglo Saxons in the West with Muslims.
I thought we were going to replace all the Anglo Saxons with Beaker people. Or have I been reading the wrong memo again?
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
But those are exceptionally silly conspiracy theories
How about
JFK Royal pedo island UFO Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
I'm going to make your day. Of those 4 there is just the one that has a decent chance of being true. Lab Leak!
Stephen Hunter - who does the bob Lee Swagger series and also a number of other excellent sniper-themed novels - wrote a novel cum investigation about the JFK shooting, His main points against the Warren Commission report, which he explains very well, is that (1) the damage claimed to have been caused by the bullet (passing through JFK, hitting Connolly) was almost impossible given the weak velocity of the 6,5mm round and (2) the ballistic testers could not repeat Oswald's aims without using a sight adjustment (or shiv) that has never been found.
It may not be a conspiracy theory but the ballistics evidence presented by Hunter - and he is not a crank - suggests that the official version re JFK is almost certainly untrue.
I read Case Closed years ago and found it compelling and definitive. Oswald acted alone. You'll never get 100% certainty on it but it's close enough for me.
Plans to kill off Hundred and Blast – and launch new competition
Threat of Major League Cricket has forced ECB and counties to discuss radical solutions
The T20 Blast and the Hundred could be disbanded and replaced with one short-form competition under radical proposals due to be discussed between the ECB and county chiefs this autumn.
There are growing concerns that the domestic schedule, which has two premier short-form competitions, does not work and that the Hundred will not be able to compete with other T20 franchise leagues — particularly with the advent of Major League Cricket in America, which is due to expand next year and likely to clash with both the Blast and The Hundred while offering more valuable contracts.
The ECB and the counties are set to take another look at the future of the domestic calendar after the end of the season. One proposal, which has growing support, is to scrap the eight Hundred teams and the 100-ball format and replace it with a T20 league featuring the 18 counties — and perhaps some of the National (formerly minor) Counties — but with a different ownership model that allows for private investment.
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
There's so much I want to say about this case but cannot but LOL at the Telegraph graphic.
Here’s another one that can’t be easily dismissed (unlike Baconism and QAnon etc)
Epstein. Suicide or not?
The @kinabalu school of witless middlebrow retired-accountant Radio 4 Brian of Britain skepticism will chortle and say Oh of course that’s a mad conspiracy theory
Really? There are, to say the least, quite a few jarring elements. The sleeping guards. The miraculously malfunctioning cameras. And so forth
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
Did Coutts actually claim that he fell below the threshold or was it just a case of the BBC and FT misreporting it for their own reasons?
Farage’s assumption is that the BBC and FT were replying on sources inside the bank, reported as being “familiar with” the decision, who were breaching client confidentiality to do so.
I’m sure other Coutts clients are happy to know that bank employees will tip off journalists, if they became the story.
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
I struggle to find Coutts's policy on customers interesting. I'm equally fine with them giving Farage an account or not giving one. I don't care if they have political views, or what they are, and I only mildly care if they allegedly told a fib to him.
Is there a setting on Twitter allowing me automatically to block anyone using the phrase "just let that sink in"? That's a feature I'd be willing to pay Musk to roll out.
I’d be curious if there is any evidence to back up this apparently outlandish claim. Covid sparing East Asians and Jews?!
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
If there is, that's a dramatic break from their usual modus operandi.
I disagree. Most conspiracy theories have a tiny seed of truth at the heart - from which vast orchards of bollocks are grown
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
The conspiracy theories I came across are Holocaust Denial, the Eleanor Butler pre-contract, the Christ Myth theory and Shakespeare authorship.
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
But those are exceptionally silly conspiracy theories
How about
JFK Royal pedo island UFO Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
I'm going to make your day. Of those 4 there is just the one that has a decent chance of being true. Lab Leak!
Stephen Hunter - who does the bob Lee Swagger series and also a number of other excellent sniper-themed novels - wrote a novel cum investigation about the JFK shooting, His main points against the Warren Commission report, which he explains very well, is that (1) the damage claimed to have been caused by the bullet (passing through JFK, hitting Connolly) was almost impossible given the weak velocity of the 6,5mm round and (2) the ballistic testers could not repeat Oswald's aims without using a sight adjustment (or shiv) that has never been found.
It may not be a conspiracy theory but the ballistics evidence presented by Hunter - and he is not a crank - suggests that the official version re JFK is almost certainly untrue.
I read Case Closed years ago and found it compelling and definitive. Oswald acted alone. You'll never get 100% certainty on it but it's close enough for me.
You read one book. This guy read 200 and is “considerably smarter than you”
Here’s another one that can’t be easily dismissed (unlike Baconism and QAnon etc)
Epstein. Suicide or not?
The @kinabalu school of witless middlebrow retired-accountant Radio 4 Brian of Britain skepticism will chortle and say Oh of course that’s a mad conspiracy theory
Really? There are, to say the least, quite a few jarring elements. The sleeping guards. The miraculously malfunctioning cameras. And so forth
The sleeping guards and broken cameras were notorious at that holding facility. The US specialities in having lot and lots of really badly maintained and run prisons.
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
I struggle to find Coutts's policy on customers interesting. I'm equally fine with them giving Farage an account or not giving one. I don't care if they have political views, or what they are, and I only mildly care if they allegedly told a fib to him.
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
I struggle to find Coutts's policy on customers interesting. I'm equally fine with them giving Farage an account or not giving one. I don't care if they have political views, or what they are, and I only mildly care if they allegedly told a fib to him.
What am I missing?
CIFAS warnings and the fact he has substantial income from America.
Open a new bank account with any bank* in the UK one of the eligibility questions they ask you are do you have income from America.
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
I struggle to find Coutts's policy on customers interesting. I'm equally fine with them giving Farage an account or not giving one. I don't care if they have political views, or what they are, and I only mildly care if they allegedly told a fib to him.
What am I missing?
CIFAS warnings and the fact he has substantial income from America.
Open a new bank account with any bank* in the UK one of the eligibility questions they ask you are do you have income from America.
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
I struggle to find Coutts's policy on customers interesting. I'm equally fine with them giving Farage an account or not giving one. I don't care if they have political views, or what they are, and I only mildly care if they allegedly told a fib to him.
What am I missing?
CIFAS warnings and the fact he has substantial income from America.
Open a new bank account with any bank* in the UK one of the eligibility questions they ask you are do you have income from America.
What is the problem with that?
You have to fill in a shit tonne of paper work to send to the Yank regulators.
Wtf is the ‘Ashkenazi Jews (Fauci anyone?)’ stuff about? Is she implying he’s Jewish?
I think so.
However he's Italian/Swiss heritage.
There's also this conspiracy theory that says the Rothschilds invented Covid-19 and made trillions from the vaccine. Said Rothschilds virus was designed to not infect Jews.
I thought these morons couldn't match their Soros was an SS officer crap, but they're getting there.
They are outdoing themselves.
One of my 'favourite' conspiracy theories is the Jews are looking to replace good old Anglo Saxons in the West with Muslims.
I thought we were going to replace all the Anglo Saxons with Beaker people. Or have I been reading the wrong memo again?
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
I struggle to find Coutts's policy on customers interesting. I'm equally fine with them giving Farage an account or not giving one. I don't care if they have political views, or what they are, and I only mildly care if they allegedly told a fib to him.
What am I missing?
His account with the Coutts was closed by the bank, and he’s been unable to open an account with any other bank. Coutts apparently briefed the media that his account was closed because he was insufficiently wealthy, but internal documents disclosed to Farage under freedom of information laws suggest that he was specifically targeted for account closure because of his political views.
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
I struggle to find Coutts's policy on customers interesting. I'm equally fine with them giving Farage an account or not giving one. I don't care if they have political views, or what they are, and I only mildly care if they allegedly told a fib to him.
What am I missing?
The more perturbing part about this story is not that Coutts closed his account - which given their rules on amounts was probably inevitable - but the suggestion he can't open an account elsewhere.
There are two possibilities:
1) That he's lying about being blacklisted to get sympathy; 2) That he really is being blacklisted for some reason.
In the case of the latter, it's worth remembering banks have always been able to refuse clients. My grandfather was once offered a large case of whisky to take a client whose account he had refused to transfer from Barclays, because the manager of Barclays was so desperate to get rid of him.
But he still refused. Bad payer, always in overdraft.
I know averages can be deceptive but how many families who use private schools *don't* have a hol abroad?
In answer to the second question, a very large number. It was one of the things you noticed in the mid-level private schools I worked in and with, that many of the children talked about their camping holidays in Devon.
I don't take foreign holidays myself very often (I haven't left the country since Covid hit) so I don't know how much they cost these days. However, prep school fees often hover around the £5-6,000 mark which doesn't sound ridiculously out of line for a family holiday in a tourist hotspot in say Spain.
Keegan is an idiot but she isn't making a stupid point here. Far too much discourse about private schools is skewed towards the top end, not considering the cheaper end.
That has rather different problems of its own that need addressing but they never get talked about.
Are you sure about your figure of £5k-£6k? From what I can see that is the typical average PER TERM. In which case £15k would get you a good holiday in Europe.
£15k is now about average day school fees. Inflation in school fees has been running a lot higher than inflation in holidays for quite some time. Back in my day(!) three decades ago, a week in Majorca for a family was about the same as the year’s school fees.
Add me to the list of PBers who had one foreign holiday in seven years while attending a private secondary school. It’s a decision made by many, many parents in that boat.
Is there a list of PBers who never set foot outside the UK until they turned 20 and whose parents would never even have considered sending them to private school? (State grammar and a week camping in Wales for me)
It's a bit four Yorkshiremen on here this morning.
My parents starved to death to send me to private school. But it was worth it.
My parents kept me in a comp. Didn't even try to send me to a grammar school.
And they never took me abroad until I was 19.
Did it bother me? Not much. Didn't particularly want to go abroad. I suffer from heat migraines very easily so the idea of hot summers was not appealing.
Would I have done better academically at a private school? Almost certainly. There was a significant problem with disruption in my local school that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. And you do see some quite stupid people who went to private schools getting on well in exams and careers.
But would have I enjoyed it? Probably not very much. I don't like commuting and my local comp was literally at the end of my road whereas the nearest private school was a ten mile bus ride.
I think this is probably my main personal issue with private schools - the advancement of the mediocre. We see it most obviously in our current government, half of whom I wouldn’t trust to make a cup of tea.
That I would agree with.
Which is one reason why I've always been adamant the way to get rid of them is to cut class sizes in the state sector dramatically. That would first, eliminate the edge private schools have and second, really improve education outcomes (much though I hate that cliche) for everyone.
The strange element in the debate about private and state education is the lack of interest in the actual issue.
Which is the better educational outcomes achieved by private schools.
At this point the debate generally devolves to Olympic swimming pools, thick poshos and my favourite - “Over education”.
Has anyone actually done a study on the effect of reducing class size without changing anything else?
Edit : The reason for the avoidance of the issue is obvious, to me.
Not in this country.
That would require you to reduce class sizes...
Once worked at a comprehensive that bust an absolute gut to get down to 24 maximum. Basically all the discrecionary spend in the budget went on that. That was probably not enough to really make a difference (you don't really change much by going from 30 to 24 in a well run school... Suspect the threshold is when 24 becomes 18). It ended up as more a selling point than anything else, and some of the consequent austerities (nothing printed full size, ever) were maddening.
Can't find the source, but I've seen it said that the key problem isn't so much staff as buildings. Cut the default class size from 30 to 20 and you need 50% more classrooms for the same number of children. And nobody has any intention of paying for that, especially in one go. Hence the use of TAs in primaries, to improve the adult:child ratio without changing the size of classes.
What are the ranges of class size in private schools? 15 early on, with slack handfuls for some A level subjects?
My eldest has ended up in a class of 2 for A level Spanish…
In my experience, there comes a point where class sizes are too small - 2 for A-level Spanish, for example. That's because the benefits of being in a group large enough to engender healthy debate and discussion are lost. I reckon anything less than 6 is too small for the cut and thrust of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interactions and the sharing of different ideas to benefit learning.
My education take that will make everyone hate me is that schools should just get out of the business of teaching A Levels, and do that in sixth form colleges instead. Lots of schools run A Level groups that are too small to be economic and probably aren't ideal from an educational point of view.
Trouble is that teachers like their tiny sixth form class (I know I did) and parents are often up in arms at the very idea.
Totally agree. State sixth-form colleges are the crème de la crème of our education system. Sadly, their numbers have reduced from just under 100 to around 50 as some have had to merge with FE colleges, and others have been academised into federations. Scandalous. Another example of clueless Tory education policies.
We have sixth form colleges in our area (Surrey) and, whilst I agree that they are very good, my secondary school was very poor at advising me on what A Levels to pick. I was basically left to figure it out for myself. Sadly, by the time I realised what I should have picked, it was too late.
That's a management problem, not a general institutional problem. A good sixth form college ought to sort that before it's too late, and facilitate a subject change.
In my first Biology VI class back in the ‘50’s, the Headmaster suddenly appeared, saying to one of us “You’re not doing this F****; you can get a State Scholarship if you do Maths”. And led the lad out without a word to the teacher, who was Head of Biology! Mind you, the Head and the Biology master were known to hate each other!
Gaming the system via subject choice is not unknown, for instance Dudley Moore's organ scholarship from working class Dagenham to Oxford, or Boris's sisters comments on the advantages of Latin and Greek for Oxford entry.
Did Dudley 'game it'? I'd have thought getting awarded an Oxford organ scholarship was pretty darn difficult, and the man was hardly a shit musician.
Nowadays the trick is supposed to be to switch from public school to local authority sixth form college to benefit from the potential for positive discrim
I don't really understand the logic of this. A levels are the bit of your schooling that really matters, surely - it's what gets you into a good Uni. If you're willing to entrust your child to the state system for that, then why not the whole lot, save yourself a load of money (and, for some, guilt) and give your childten the enormous benefit of learning among a diverse cross section of their fellow citizens?
As said above, you tutor on the side to deliver the grades, and rely on the Oxbridge college wanting to maintain its decent 'not from public school' percentage to deliver the offer
Why not just encourage your child to work hard, trust their teachers and let them find their own level? Kids who are hot-housed and spoon fed to get into top Unis will typically underperform there. I never got any tuition and we've not got any for our children.
Ah yes, the "hot-housed and spoon fed" argument.
Jessica Ennis-Hill shouldn't have bothered with all that ghastly over training. Once round the track on a weekend does just fine.
If you want state schools to catch up with private school results, effort and money will be required.
Take a look at the educational rankings internationally. Then look at the what the state schools manage.
Money is up to the government. If you think that teachers at state schools aren't putting in any effort then I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. Their dedication in the face of terrible pay and conditions is incredible. Private schools aren't training their kids to become great athletes, they are more like a combination of performance enhancing drugs and letting some competitors start the race half way round the track. That's why state school kids tend to do better at uni. I saw it when I was at university, some private school kids were very bright, but a lot had obviously been coached over the line and really shouldn't have been there.
It's not about individual effort by teachers. it's about numbers and resources.
What private schools are doing is attempting to create as much educational attainment as possible, with more resources.
If the same methodology was applied to the state school sector, then you would get similar results.
With the caveat of streaming the angry ones who are determined to disrupt others educations out of the way of the bright.
Without the private sector, educational attainment in this country would be held up for stark international comparison.
The private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil. Of course this leads to better results. If you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are not better. They are, in fact, worse.
That's like saying that loads of people are as fast as Jessica Ennis-Hill - once you take away the training.
The actual results achieved by the state are worse than those of the private sector. This is the fault of the state system, not the fault of the private system.
The "creaming off" claim, by the way, has been debunked. There are a plenty of pupils in the state system who should be getting their 3 A* etc.
Bags of Moe Sbihi's out there, waiting for the talent scouts...
But they aren't. This isn't because of private school mind control rays - it is because they are not being trained to their potential.
The idea that the fix is somehow to get all the BrightPrivateSchoolToffMorons to go to state schools, to just lift the attainment numbers, is to abandon those who could actually benefit from the same level of education.
No, it's like saying that the private sector creams off an advantaged intake and then spends far more per pupil, and that if you adjust for these factors to get a fair comparison their results are, in fact, worse.
I'm not sure what your point is tbh. Let's forget about 'Jessica Ennis Hill' for a second and consider 3 things that could explain the 'better' results of private schools.
1. Much higher funding. 2. An advantaged intake. 3. Superior teachers and teaching practices.
Are you seriously claiming it's mainly 3 rather than almost exclusively 1 and 2?
It's 1. Combined with a chunk of 3 - mainly about letting teachers teach effectively. The teachers are the same humans, and not paid that differently.
There are far more bright pupils out there, in the state system, than could fill the whole private system x times over.
The ones who practically teach themselves are fine, in the current states schools. Except when they are attending St Stabington's. Where avoiding being stabbed is an issue.
It's the ones who need help and encouragement to progress who are being left behind.
Talking of talent discovered... Having talked to Moe Sbihi - if he hadn't been found by a talent scout, he would be working at the local Tesco, like his friends. Probably no A levels, he said.
Ok so we agree the higher funding - hence smaller classes and superior facilities - is key to the 'better' results. Tick.
As to the other material factor, do you truly believe it's more about better teaching than the advantaged intake? To me it's dropdown obvious that the pupil intake has a big impact on results achieved. Why do you dispute this?
And where are you getting that belief from, that private school teachers are better? Most people I know in the teaching game (both sectors) say the opposite if anything.
The biggest skew is from excluding those who don't want to be there. It is notable that the state schools that achieve high academic results (some as good as any private school) exclude the problematic pupils by various mechanisms.
Not that they are better teachers - just that they are (often) given more freedom to teach effectively.
That's what I'm saying! - that their skewed intake is instrumental to their 'better' results.
So, ok, the higher funding is key, we agree on that. TICK. And their skewed pupil intake is key, we agree on that too. TICK.
Comments
And then the Mail will benefit when they can send out reporters to complain about the illegal immigrants we are paying for to enjoy Olympic pools in the sunshine whilst Albania suddenly ends up with a generation of athletes who have been using the facilities to leap to the top of the next Olympic medal table.
This is like the idea (which I agree with) of having the Olympics permanently at Olympia in Greece.
Los Angeles - yawn - then Brisbane in 2032?! - yawnnnnn. Brisbane. Jeez. 2036 will probably end up in newent
So the commonwealth games are gonna be even less popular than the Olympics and if they are gonna be rescued they will have to massively downsize
I think 'better' is all we can realistically expect for the moment. The per pupil funding gap, state v private, is enormous. Double to triple, I believe, something of that order. One can't imagine the education budget being increased on anything like this scale. But I'd hope (and expect) to see a raised priority (with funding to follow) under Labour cf the Conservatives.
You need to train yourself out of the "it's a con" thinking.
A well trained runner will, very often, go faster than someone who isn't well trained.
It's opened back out since then, mostly due to private schools being able to jack up their fees. And I don't see any government being able to do much about that, even if they wanted to.
Bottom line, there may be some meaningful seams of tax that Labour can find. But otherwise, the country has to get richer to be able to afford any nice things, and it's hard to see a sustainable path to that that gets past the electorate.
Beverley Turner, GB News presenter, pushing an antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews engineered Covid.
This is clearly antisemitic - will @GBNEWS be taking action? We doubt it.
Last week we called out GB News for platforming the far right and individuals with histories of racism and crank conspiracy theories.
This week a presenter is sharing an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
What's coming next?
https://twitter.com/hopenothate/status/1681310878447312897
But some of the infrastructure has, in a sense, "vanished". Athletes' villages will have turned into private housing, quite a few venues are temporary, stadiums tend to be sold to football teams etc.
The Commonwealth lacks a theme anyway, and admitting randomers like Rwanda and Mozambique makes it a complete hotchpotch.
I was meditating on KCIII's choice of Rwanda to do the mea culpa about slavery, given that it's the only African member (again except Mozambique) from which nobody ever saw the inside of a slave ship nor of a British concentration camp. Did the FO advise him he was inviting a lawsuit if he did it in Gabon or Cameroon?
Also schools which are good at getting children through exams are not necessarily providing a good education.
It would be interesting to see some actual numbers on the cost of various class sizes, for example.
They should leave it for important people in London.
Seems unlikely. But is there a kernel of truth from which they’ve confected the walnut whip of nonsense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUDxUfpQ1wQ&ab_channel=USATODAY
I'm not sure what your point is tbh. Let's forget about 'Jessica Ennis Hill' for a second and consider 3 things that could explain the 'better' results of private schools.
1. Much higher funding.
2. An advantaged intake.
3. Superior teachers and teaching practices.
Are you seriously claiming it's mainly 3 rather than almost exclusively 1 and 2?
And of course some conspiracy theories turn out to be true
I hasten to add that I exceedingly doubt that this one is true. The Covid death rate of East Asians in Hong Kong was horrific
None of them have a 'tiny seed of truth' in them.
https://www.theverge.com/22878708/twitter-mute-tweets-word-name-tag-how-to
If you look at crude numbers, then the fact that some East Asian countries did relatively well on Covid management would help (and China's low official stats would also help). Not sure about the 'jewish' claim, but again there might be something related to socioeconomic status and job types, particularly if compared to the whole population in e.g. the US - might be that 'jewish' is no different to white, but does better than e.g. whole population including black due to socioeconomic differences.
So, I don't know, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are stats that could be misused to support such a claim. If you ignore confounders, there are stats than can be misused to support pretty much any claim.
ETA: This is interesting, for UK, split by waves/variants https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/updatingethniccontrastsindeathsinvolvingthecoronaviruscovid19englandandwales/24january2020to23november2022
You could perhaps make an East Asian argument for omicron (again, these are crude data, not adusted for other factors, I think)
How about
JFK
Royal pedo island
UFO
Lab Leak
In order:
1. Probably true. There was likely some conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald
2. Sounds mad but - Prince andrew and Epstein??
3. The senate Democrat majority leader is demanding the pentagon release all its data on UFOS - or else
4. Probably true, and certainly not the “baseless conspiracy” alleged by the Lancet Letter
Between that and being a half Jewish, ex-FreeMason, you'd think... But no.
The village shop is a nice idea. But unless you subsidise it massively, it will die.
It shall not be a depressing, dimly lit shambles.
Of course, as Leon indicates, the real madness comes from the casual "and therefore..." in conspiracy theories.
That a particular disease might on average affect different ethnic groups slightly differently due to genetic differences isn't terribly novel or surprising. The idea that this should be taken seriously as evidence that a disease has been engineered by members of a group that is relatively less impacted (although not in any way immune) is, on the other hand, absolutely nuts.
There are far more bright pupils out there, in the state system, than could fill the whole private system x times over.
The ones who practically teach themselves are fine, in the current states schools. Except when they are attending St Stabington's. Where avoiding being stabbed is an issue.
It's the ones who need help and encouragement to progress who are being left behind.
Talking of talent discovered... Having talked to Moe Sbihi - if he hadn't been found by a talent scout, he would be working at the local Tesco, like his friends. Probably no A levels, he said.
eg The Rothschilds were enormously powerful in 19th century Europe and actually did operate quite secretive networks across the continent. Bailing out monarchs etc
This does not mean they are now running the entire world and giving us special water laced with bio-atomic drugs
And old people, of course. Which rules out Conservative party involvement, at least.
McDonald's told to shut franchises over abuse claims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66231131
Traditionally, anti-semitism has been most intense against the Jews who dress (sort of) like 18th Cent Eastern German farmers*.
The assimilated fellows you might let in your golf club, but *they* are The Alien.
It's literally in the book by that Austrian fellow - all about his Struggle for a bigger Living Room.
*Trousers should really reach the shoes. But if you are up to your ankles in mud every day...
It likely involved organised crime - mafia - and some low level government intel enemies of jfk
And it’s hard to deny Prince Andrew went to Pedo Island. That’s literally what he did
However he's Italian/Swiss heritage.
There's also this conspiracy theory that says the Rothschilds invented Covid-19 and made trillions from the vaccine. Said Rothschilds virus was designed to not infect Jews.
Said morons very often have a thing about Jesuits as well.
Blue Wall VI (16 July):
Labour 36% (–)
Conservative 32% (+3)
Liberal Democrat 23% (-2)
Reform UK 5% (–)
Green 5% (+1)
Other 0% (-1)
Changes +/- 2 July
Which of the following do Blue Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (16 July)
Keir Starmer 40% (+4)
Rishi Sunak 40% (+6)
Changes +/- 2 July
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1681333006940905473
https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/1681316430317494273
It may not be a conspiracy theory but the ballistics evidence presented by Hunter - and he is not a crank - suggests that the official version re JFK is almost certainly untrue.
Ironically, the clincher is the so-called Magic Bullet. If you build a 3D model of where everyone was, in the limo, when they were hit, the bullet holes in each person line up almost perfectly. And give a very accurate pointer to where the gunman was.
In the window of the Book Depository.
His conclusion: yes, a loose conspiracy. Organised crime deeply implicated, plus a few other people upset by various positions taken by JFK
I’ll take his word. He had no agenda to pursue
But I am - as I say upthread - convinced by some highly intelligent people - who I trust - who HAVE taken the time
As to the other material factor, do you truly believe it's more about better teaching than the advantaged intake? To me it's dropdown obvious that the pupil intake has a big impact on results achieved. Why do you think otherwise?
And where are you getting that belief from, that private school teaching is better? Most people I know in the teaching game (both sectors) say the opposite if anything.
Which, back in the day when the Hapsburgs were coloring a large swath of central/eastern Europe imperial yellow, was the easternmost outpost of the Austrian half of the Dual Monarchy.
Am mentioning this, because today's NYT features interesting feature about Chernivtsi, which is far from the battle fronts (including Kyiv) and is an oasis of relative peace - relatively speaking for a nation at war.
Urge those of you who can access to check it out:
CHERNIVTSI DISPATCH
Far From the Front, They Stand in Honor of Ukraine
The city of Chernivtsi in western Ukraine has been spared the mayhem of the Russian invasion. But like other towns in the region, it is doing its part, and has become, in effect, a back office of the war effort.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/world/asia/chernivtsi-western-ukraine-aid.html#:~:text=The city of Chernivtsi in,office of the war effort.
Which should hopefully be the end of any political aspirations he has.
I’d like to hope her station and colleagues will distance themselves from her.
Disgraceful comments.
Not that they are better teachers - just that they are (often) given more freedom to teach effectively.
Of course it doesn't always work does it Diane?
Labour # hypocrisy rules.
Threat of Major League Cricket has forced ECB and counties to discuss radical solutions
The T20 Blast and the Hundred could be disbanded and replaced with one short-form competition under radical proposals due to be discussed between the ECB and county chiefs this autumn.
There are growing concerns that the domestic schedule, which has two premier short-form competitions, does not work and that the Hundred will not be able to compete with other T20 franchise leagues — particularly with the advent of Major League Cricket in America, which is due to expand next year and likely to clash with both the Blast and The Hundred while offering more valuable contracts.
The ECB and the counties are set to take another look at the future of the domestic calendar after the end of the season. One proposal, which has growing support, is to scrap the eight Hundred teams and the 100-ball format and replace it with a T20 league featuring the 18 counties — and perhaps some of the National (formerly minor) Counties — but with a different ownership model that allows for private investment.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plans-to-kill-off-hundred-and-blast-and-launch-new-competition-hk7vg7rzt
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/nigel-farage-coutts-bank-account-closed-align-with-values/
“Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
“Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
“Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.”
One of my 'favourite' conspiracy theories is the Jews are looking to replace good old Anglo Saxons in the West with Muslims.
Although I do hope, whatever comes out of it, they do build on the success of the hundred for the womens game.
The county membership will be happy to see the back of the Hundred, less so the county boards.
I suspect that getting rid of the Blast will be much less popular.
Epstein. Suicide or not?
The @kinabalu school of witless middlebrow retired-accountant Radio 4 Brian of Britain skepticism will chortle and say Oh of course that’s a mad conspiracy theory
Really? There are, to say the least, quite a few jarring elements. The sleeping guards. The miraculously malfunctioning cameras. And so forth
I’m sure other Coutts clients are happy to know that bank employees will tip off journalists, if they became the story.
What am I missing?
Open a new bank account with any bank* in the UK one of the eligibility questions they ask you are do you have income from America.
Jaguar Land Rover owner set to announce plans for flagship electric car battery factory in Somerset, UK, creating up to 9,000 jobs
H/T Selebian.
Telegraph are now running this as their lead story. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/nigel-farage-coutts-bank-account-closed-align-with-values/
There are two possibilities:
1) That he's lying about being blacklisted to get sympathy;
2) That he really is being blacklisted for some reason.
In the case of the latter, it's worth remembering banks have always been able to refuse clients. My grandfather was once offered a large case of whisky to take a client whose account he had refused to transfer from Barclays, because the manager of Barclays was so desperate to get rid of him.
But he still refused. Bad payer, always in overdraft.
So, ok, the higher funding is key, we agree on that. TICK. And their skewed pupil intake is key, we agree on that too. TICK.
Gee, you're hard work sometimes.