The racism furore in county cricket has reignited after the chairman of Middlesex expressed "outdated" stereotypes on why cricket is failing to nurture black and Asian talent.
Azeem Rafiq and Ebony Rainford-Brent expressed outrage after Mike O'Farrell told MPs young black players prefer football and south Asian communities prioritise education.
O'Farrell's comments were immediately likened with the career-ending words of former FA chairman Greg Clarke, who told the same committee in 2020 that south Asian people choose careers in IT over sport.
"The other thing in the diversity bit is that the football and rugby world becomes much more attractive to the Afro-Caribbean community," said the Middlesex chief as he sat alongside other county chairmen at the first parliamentary hearing on cricket since Rafiq's bombshell evidence last November.
"And in terms of the South Asian community, there is a moment where we're finding that they do not want necessarily to commit the same time that is necessary to go to the next step because they sometimes prefer to go into other educational fields, and then cricket becomes secondary. And part of that is because it's a rather more time-consuming sport than some others. So we're finding that's difficult."
Sport should always be secondary to education. I professional sportsperson will have a career of maybe 20 years. A good education lasts for life.
Depends how good you are, if you are an outstanding footballer or cricketer or tennis player or rugby player then you will likely earn more from professional sport than you ever would in any other field.
If you are only average or crap at sport, education is obviously far more important as you have zero chance of a professional sports career but your education level will likely determine your future earnings. You can still play sport for fun or fitness but grades come first
As I noted down thread, "outstanding" tennis. It isn't true. I think most people would say 150th in the world is outstanding, after all your expenses you won't basically take any money at all. Tennis is one of the most top heavy sports going, Nadal, Novax, Federer makes £10 millions a year, Liam Broady (128th in the world) has to have a lodger to pay the rent on his flat.
Cricket, if you only make it to county cricket, again, no you will be on crap money. Minimum county cricket salary is £24k a year. Its only if you make it to international or IPL level that you can make real money.
This is true for most sports. Don’t forget sponsorship though. County cricketers etc get a car, free bats and kit etc. They will also expect to get a benefit season towards the end, useful for setting up the next stage of their lives. I note Brady has career earnings north of 1,000,000 dollars. Letting out the flat you don’t need while globe trotting is just sound business.
Cricketers getting free bats, while being paid £25k a year woophie. Its why so many have to have a second job of some sort (be it more cricket or other off season income). Also making it through 10 years of county cricket is far from a certainty. And its a pretty shitty life constantly on the road living out of budget hotels.
As for Broady, as explained, his expenses are vast and sponsorship small. I don't have the video link to hand, but he explains if he doesn't win a round at one of the grand slams in a year, he can't pay for his strength and conditioning coach. He spends £12k a year out of his own pocket on restring-ing his rackets alone. The constant travel for tennis is eye wateringly expensive, without the sort of income that say golf can provide.
I think he says from that $1m, he has made about $100k....in 10 years.
Yes, to be clear I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The top end really distorts perceptions about how much money sport pays.
Yes and no. Tennis is problematic because if you are 100th in the world, you play basically always play the top guys in R1 and go home with no money.
Something like golf, the base is much wider in terms of pay outs, but also you don't have to beat the World #1 to make any money. You can be 200-300th (even lower) in the world at golf and be earning a very decent living.
I’m sure you are right, but don’t they have similar issues re coaches, caddy, constant travel etc too? But yes it does seem easier to earn at a lower level.
take the 100th best at a sport in the world--
Golf - millionaire perhaps ? 6 figure earnings annually Tennis - Not far away from golf Athletics - relying on a 20-30k a year UK sport grant probably Snooker - on the breadline Darts - is a postman/builder Cricket -60k a year playing as a senior pro at county/state level? Football - multi milliionaire ,fawned by fans earning 7 figure sums annually .
Always be a footballer!!
100th best golfer in the world is winning several million a year.
The 100th best tennis player is winning more like $100-200k, before massive expenses.
Cricket, its £25k a year base salary for a country cricketer. Senior pros will be lucky to be £60k. Its why guns for hire for world T20 leagues is such a popular job.
yes but 100th best cricketer in the world is probably on the fringe of international selection I woudl think
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 1h NEW: Another Cabinet row erupted today as two senior ministers clashed over the future of the BBC for the second week running...
Nadine Dorries and Therese Coffey crossed swords again over funding of Beeb - with @thejonnyreilly
Cycling the craziest one for me. Its £40k a year minimum for a world tour cyclist, but then every year the team you belong to decide among the riders themselves what the rewards structure for prize money. Some teams its a percentage, some its even split, some its only if you rode in an event, some its any member of the team.
I think it was Peter Kennaugh on the Tour de France coverage last year said he made more money in a single year he didn't even ride the grand tours than basically the rest of his career, because Team Sky totally dominated and for that year they paid even split to everybody who was a member of the team.
The longer this goes on, I’m afraid the safer Boris is.
Boris is counting on overtaking events to divert us.
What a crook he is. I hope the photos are leaked soon.
I’m sure he is counting on events and kicking the can down the road but there come a time when that road runs out.
I fully expect him to survive until May and if the locals are horrendous, or even just bad, he’s gone.
I know it is already forgotten, but the news that stories today of Rishi strolling into the birthday sing along, with Lulu Lytle, thinking he was going to COBRA…have shaken me.
Downing Street seems to be run with less care and discipline than even the shittiest places I’ve worked in my career.
Perhaps being teetotal he didn't realise that a Cobra meeting was Downing St code for curry and a crate of Indian lager.
As I sip a small glass of Single Malt and toast my Hibernian ancestors and the immortal bard, I do hope that Johnson has a glass to go with his (political career) revolver. Can he be relied on to do the decent thing? 🤔
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
School isn't a choice. It's mandatory and decisions about it are done on behalf of children who, at the sorts of ages we're talking about, lack the capacity to make these big choices.
If you think all that sounds a bit like whether to pick up Options hot chocolate versus Tesco value cocoa powder, then you're as deluded as anyone can possibly be.
How many HYUFD posts have you read? Deluded is his last initial.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
The comps that I went to covered quite large council estates, as very many do. Certainly more socially diverse than either Grammars or private schools.
Ilford County (a grammar back then, natch) was pretty diverse when I started attending there in 1987. I think out of a class of 30, there were 8 Jewish, 8 Asians (inc. yours truly), and 2 mixed race lads.
Interestingly, one of the mixed race boys moved away from Ilford in 1990 and was replaced by a certain Alex Hilton!
The racism furore in county cricket has reignited after the chairman of Middlesex expressed "outdated" stereotypes on why cricket is failing to nurture black and Asian talent.
Azeem Rafiq and Ebony Rainford-Brent expressed outrage after Mike O'Farrell told MPs young black players prefer football and south Asian communities prioritise education.
O'Farrell's comments were immediately likened with the career-ending words of former FA chairman Greg Clarke, who told the same committee in 2020 that south Asian people choose careers in IT over sport.
"The other thing in the diversity bit is that the football and rugby world becomes much more attractive to the Afro-Caribbean community," said the Middlesex chief as he sat alongside other county chairmen at the first parliamentary hearing on cricket since Rafiq's bombshell evidence last November.
"And in terms of the South Asian community, there is a moment where we're finding that they do not want necessarily to commit the same time that is necessary to go to the next step because they sometimes prefer to go into other educational fields, and then cricket becomes secondary. And part of that is because it's a rather more time-consuming sport than some others. So we're finding that's difficult."
Sport should always be secondary to education. I professional sportsperson will have a career of maybe 20 years. A good education lasts for life.
Depends how good you are, if you are an outstanding footballer or cricketer or tennis player or rugby player then you will likely earn more from professional sport than you ever would in any other field.
If you are only average or crap at sport, education is obviously far more important as you have zero chance of a professional sports career but your education level will likely determine your future earnings. You can still play sport for fun or fitness but grades come first
As I noted down thread, "outstanding" tennis. It isn't true. I think most people would say 150th in the world is outstanding, after all your expenses you won't basically take any money at all. Tennis is one of the most top heavy sports going, Nadal, Novax, Federer makes £10 millions a year, Liam Broady (128th in the world) has to have a lodger to pay the rent on his flat.
Cricket, if you only make it to county cricket, again, no you will be on crap money. Minimum county cricket salary is £24k a year. Its only if you make it to international or IPL level that you can make real money.
This is true for most sports. Don’t forget sponsorship though. County cricketers etc get a car, free bats and kit etc. They will also expect to get a benefit season towards the end, useful for setting up the next stage of their lives. I note Brady has career earnings north of 1,000,000 dollars. Letting out the flat you don’t need while globe trotting is just sound business.
Cricketers getting free bats, while being paid £25k a year woophie. Its why so many have to have a second job of some sort (be it more cricket or other off season income). Also making it through 10 years of county cricket is far from a certainty. And its a pretty shitty life constantly on the road living out of budget hotels.
As for Broady, as explained, his expenses are vast and sponsorship small. I don't have the video link to hand, but he explains if he doesn't win a round at one of the grand slams in a year, he can't pay for his strength and conditioning coach. He spends £12k a year out of his own pocket on restring-ing his rackets alone. The constant travel for tennis is eye wateringly expensive, without the sort of income that say golf can provide.
I think he says from that $1m, he has made about $100k....in 10 years.
Yes, to be clear I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The top end really distorts perceptions about how much money sport pays.
Yes and no. Tennis is problematic because if you are 100th in the world, you play basically always play the top guys in R1 and go home with no money.
Something like golf, the base is much wider in terms of pay outs, but also you don't have to beat the World #1 to make any money. You can be 200-300th (even lower) in the world at golf and be earning a very decent living.
I’m sure you are right, but don’t they have similar issues re coaches, caddy, constant travel etc too? But yes it does seem easier to earn at a lower level.
take the 100th best at a sport in the world--
Golf - millionaire perhaps ? 6 figure earnings annually Tennis - Not far away from golf Athletics - relying on a 20-30k a year UK sport grant probably Snooker - on the breadline Darts - is a postman/builder Cricket -60k a year playing as a senior pro at county/state level? Football - multi milliionaire ,fawned by fans earning 7 figure sums annually .
Always be a footballer!!
100th best golfer in the world is winning several million a year.
The 100th best tennis player is winning more like $100-200k, before massive expenses.
Cricket, its £25k a year base salary for a country cricketer. Senior pros will be lucky to be £60k. Its why guns for hire for world T20 leagues is such a popular job.
yes but 100th best cricketer in the world is probably on the fringe of international selection I woudl think
Even England central contracts some are only on £70k e.g. Rory Burns. As a career choice, its seems absolutely shit. I am England #1 opener (that's not necessarily saying much) and you can earn £70k a year at peak as a dedicated red ball player.
Now if you get a reputation as a world class T20 player, now if you are willing to travel the world every year, you can earn a decent wage. That's a hard life though, being away from home for 6+ months of the year.
The 200th ranked player on the US PGA Tour of golf still win $250k and they are probably only 300-400th in the world.
The racism furore in county cricket has reignited after the chairman of Middlesex expressed "outdated" stereotypes on why cricket is failing to nurture black and Asian talent.
Azeem Rafiq and Ebony Rainford-Brent expressed outrage after Mike O'Farrell told MPs young black players prefer football and south Asian communities prioritise education.
O'Farrell's comments were immediately likened with the career-ending words of former FA chairman Greg Clarke, who told the same committee in 2020 that south Asian people choose careers in IT over sport.
"The other thing in the diversity bit is that the football and rugby world becomes much more attractive to the Afro-Caribbean community," said the Middlesex chief as he sat alongside other county chairmen at the first parliamentary hearing on cricket since Rafiq's bombshell evidence last November.
"And in terms of the South Asian community, there is a moment where we're finding that they do not want necessarily to commit the same time that is necessary to go to the next step because they sometimes prefer to go into other educational fields, and then cricket becomes secondary. And part of that is because it's a rather more time-consuming sport than some others. So we're finding that's difficult."
Sport should always be secondary to education. I professional sportsperson will have a career of maybe 20 years. A good education lasts for life.
Depends how good you are, if you are an outstanding footballer or cricketer or tennis player or rugby player then you will likely earn more from professional sport than you ever would in any other field.
If you are only average or crap at sport, education is obviously far more important as you have zero chance of a professional sports career but your education level will likely determine your future earnings. You can still play sport for fun or fitness but grades come first
As I noted down thread, "outstanding" tennis. It isn't true. I think most people would say 150th in the world is outstanding, after all your expenses you won't basically take any money at all. Tennis is one of the most top heavy sports going, Nadal, Novax, Federer makes £10 millions a year, Liam Broady (128th in the world) has to have a lodger to pay the rent on his flat.
Cricket, if you only make it to county cricket, again, no you will be on crap money. Minimum county cricket salary is £24k a year. Its only if you make it to international or IPL level that you can make real money.
This is true for most sports. Don’t forget sponsorship though. County cricketers etc get a car, free bats and kit etc. They will also expect to get a benefit season towards the end, useful for setting up the next stage of their lives. I note Brady has career earnings north of 1,000,000 dollars. Letting out the flat you don’t need while globe trotting is just sound business.
Cricketers getting free bats, while being paid £25k a year woophie. Its why so many have to have a second job of some sort (be it more cricket or other off season income). Also making it through 10 years of county cricket is far from a certainty. And its a pretty shitty life constantly on the road living out of budget hotels.
As for Broady, as explained, his expenses are vast and sponsorship small. I don't have the video link to hand, but he explains if he doesn't win a round at one of the grand slams in a year, he can't pay for his strength and conditioning coach. He spends £12k a year out of his own pocket on restring-ing his rackets alone. The constant travel for tennis is eye wateringly expensive, without the sort of income that say golf can provide.
I think he says from that $1m, he has made about $100k....in 10 years.
Yes, to be clear I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The top end really distorts perceptions about how much money sport pays.
Yes and no. Tennis is problematic because if you are 100th in the world, you play basically always play the top guys in R1 and go home with no money.
Something like golf, the base is much wider in terms of pay outs, but also you don't have to beat the World #1 to make any money. You can be 200-300th (even lower) in the world at golf and be earning a very decent living.
I’m sure you are right, but don’t they have similar issues re coaches, caddy, constant travel etc too? But yes it does seem easier to earn at a lower level.
take the 100th best at a sport in the world--
Golf - millionaire perhaps ? 6 figure earnings annually Tennis - Not far away from golf Athletics - relying on a 20-30k a year UK sport grant probably Snooker - on the breadline Darts - is a postman/builder Cricket -60k a year playing as a senior pro at county/state level? Football - multi milliionaire ,fawned by fans earning 7 figure sums annually .
Always be a footballer!!
100th best golfer in the world is winning several million a year.
The 100th best tennis player is winning more like $100-200k, before massive expenses.
Cricket, its £25k a year base salary for a country cricketer. Senior pros will be lucky to be £60k. Its why guns for hire for world T20 leagues is such a popular job.
yes but 100th best cricketer in the world is probably on the fringe of international selection I woudl think
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
But the essence of grammar schools isn't parental choice- it's Blankshire County Council (or School Consortium these days) saying which children they are willing to let into this school. And, whatever the ideal of untutorable IQ tests, the reality is that very few bright-but-poor kids make it into grammar schools these days- a few years spending on tutoring trumps raw talent.
There are two genuine but wicked problems at play here. One is the one @eek points out- there's a limit to what schools can do in the face of parental reluctance/resistance. The place where I was a governor was beaten against that rock on a daily basis. The other is that parental choice only really works if there's enough spare capacity in the system for parents to have meaningful choice between several available places. The system doesn't have the money to do that, and the difficulty in cramming a thirty-first child in each class (let alone a thirty-fifth) doesn't help.
It's a horrible problem, but adding admissions exams isn't the solution, unless you are nostalgic for the 1950's. (Then, rationing academic education with graduate teachers was sensible and zeitgeisty. Things have changed.)
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
The comps that I went to covered quite large council estates, as very many do. Certainly more socially diverse than either Grammars or private schools.
There you go again with your actual experience. You have to remember that the only people qualified to talk about comprehensive schools are those with no experience of them as either a pupil or a parent.
The racism furore in county cricket has reignited after the chairman of Middlesex expressed "outdated" stereotypes on why cricket is failing to nurture black and Asian talent.
Azeem Rafiq and Ebony Rainford-Brent expressed outrage after Mike O'Farrell told MPs young black players prefer football and south Asian communities prioritise education.
O'Farrell's comments were immediately likened with the career-ending words of former FA chairman Greg Clarke, who told the same committee in 2020 that south Asian people choose careers in IT over sport.
"The other thing in the diversity bit is that the football and rugby world becomes much more attractive to the Afro-Caribbean community," said the Middlesex chief as he sat alongside other county chairmen at the first parliamentary hearing on cricket since Rafiq's bombshell evidence last November.
"And in terms of the South Asian community, there is a moment where we're finding that they do not want necessarily to commit the same time that is necessary to go to the next step because they sometimes prefer to go into other educational fields, and then cricket becomes secondary. And part of that is because it's a rather more time-consuming sport than some others. So we're finding that's difficult."
Sport should always be secondary to education. I professional sportsperson will have a career of maybe 20 years. A good education lasts for life.
Depends how good you are, if you are an outstanding footballer or cricketer or tennis player or rugby player then you will likely earn more from professional sport than you ever would in any other field.
If you are only average or crap at sport, education is obviously far more important as you have zero chance of a professional sports career but your education level will likely determine your future earnings. You can still play sport for fun or fitness but grades come first
As I noted down thread, "outstanding" tennis. It isn't true. I think most people would say 150th in the world is outstanding, after all your expenses you won't basically take any money at all. Tennis is one of the most top heavy sports going, Nadal, Novax, Federer makes £10 millions a year, Liam Broady (128th in the world) has to have a lodger to pay the rent on his flat.
Cricket, if you only make it to county cricket, again, no you will be on crap money. Minimum county cricket salary is £24k a year. Its only if you make it to international or IPL level that you can make real money.
This is true for most sports. Don’t forget sponsorship though. County cricketers etc get a car, free bats and kit etc. They will also expect to get a benefit season towards the end, useful for setting up the next stage of their lives. I note Brady has career earnings north of 1,000,000 dollars. Letting out the flat you don’t need while globe trotting is just sound business.
Cricketers getting free bats, while being paid £25k a year woophie. Its why so many have to have a second job of some sort (be it more cricket or other off season income). Also making it through 10 years of county cricket is far from a certainty. And its a pretty shitty life constantly on the road living out of budget hotels.
As for Broady, as explained, his expenses are vast and sponsorship small. I don't have the video link to hand, but he explains if he doesn't win a round at one of the grand slams in a year, he can't pay for his strength and conditioning coach. He spends £12k a year out of his own pocket on restring-ing his rackets alone. The constant travel for tennis is eye wateringly expensive, without the sort of income that say golf can provide.
I think he says from that $1m, he has made about $100k....in 10 years.
Yes, to be clear I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The top end really distorts perceptions about how much money sport pays.
Yes and no. Tennis is problematic because if you are 100th in the world, you play basically always play the top guys in R1 and go home with no money.
Something like golf, the base is much wider in terms of pay outs, but also you don't have to beat the World #1 to make any money. You can be 200-300th (even lower) in the world at golf and be earning a very decent living.
I’m sure you are right, but don’t they have similar issues re coaches, caddy, constant travel etc too? But yes it does seem easier to earn at a lower level.
take the 100th best at a sport in the world--
Golf - millionaire perhaps ? 6 figure earnings annually Tennis - Not far away from golf Athletics - relying on a 20-30k a year UK sport grant probably Snooker - on the breadline Darts - is a postman/builder Cricket -60k a year playing as a senior pro at county/state level? Football - multi milliionaire ,fawned by fans earning 7 figure sums annually .
Always be a footballer!!
100th best golfer in the world is winning several million a year.
The 100th best tennis player is winning more like $100-200k, before massive expenses.
Cricket, its £25k a year base salary for a country cricketer. Senior pros will be lucky to be £60k. Its why guns for hire for world T20 leagues is such a popular job.
yes but 100th best cricketer in the world is probably on the fringe of international selection I woudl think
If they are English they are probably already playing for the national team, and outperforming most of the rest of the team.
This concept of a “household bubble” encompassing the whole of the office complex behind No. 10 is preposterous. After commenting on these laws for almost two years I have never heard anyone propose something like this except as a joke
Is my memory serving me correctly in that I recall Priti Patel promoting a number where you grassed up your neighbours if they were breaking covid rules . I am sure she never used it to tell on Boris
It's not much of a silver lining to an unfolding national catastrophe but the new editor of the Daily Mail's decision to go all in on backing Johnson looks like one of the worst calls in the history of Fleet Street. https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1485684231749746688
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
The comps that I went to covered quite large council estates, as very many do. Certainly more socially diverse than either Grammars or private schools.
There you go again with your actual experience. You have to remember that the only people qualified to talk about comprehensive schools are those with no experience of them as either a pupil or a parent.
I’m glad I didn’t go to our local comp. The stories from my mates were horrendous.
If you grow up in an inner city (ex-London), it is almost certain you won’t get the diversity Foxy talks about.
The racism furore in county cricket has reignited after the chairman of Middlesex expressed "outdated" stereotypes on why cricket is failing to nurture black and Asian talent.
Azeem Rafiq and Ebony Rainford-Brent expressed outrage after Mike O'Farrell told MPs young black players prefer football and south Asian communities prioritise education.
O'Farrell's comments were immediately likened with the career-ending words of former FA chairman Greg Clarke, who told the same committee in 2020 that south Asian people choose careers in IT over sport.
"The other thing in the diversity bit is that the football and rugby world becomes much more attractive to the Afro-Caribbean community," said the Middlesex chief as he sat alongside other county chairmen at the first parliamentary hearing on cricket since Rafiq's bombshell evidence last November.
"And in terms of the South Asian community, there is a moment where we're finding that they do not want necessarily to commit the same time that is necessary to go to the next step because they sometimes prefer to go into other educational fields, and then cricket becomes secondary. And part of that is because it's a rather more time-consuming sport than some others. So we're finding that's difficult."
Sport should always be secondary to education. I professional sportsperson will have a career of maybe 20 years. A good education lasts for life.
Depends how good you are, if you are an outstanding footballer or cricketer or tennis player or rugby player then you will likely earn more from professional sport than you ever would in any other field.
If you are only average or crap at sport, education is obviously far more important as you have zero chance of a professional sports career but your education level will likely determine your future earnings. You can still play sport for fun or fitness but grades come first
As I noted down thread, "outstanding" tennis. It isn't true. I think most people would say 150th in the world is outstanding, after all your expenses you won't basically take any money at all. Tennis is one of the most top heavy sports going, Nadal, Novax, Federer makes £10 millions a year, Liam Broady (128th in the world) has to have a lodger to pay the rent on his flat.
Cricket, if you only make it to county cricket, again, no you will be on crap money. Minimum county cricket salary is £24k a year. Its only if you make it to international or IPL level that you can make real money.
This is true for most sports. Don’t forget sponsorship though. County cricketers etc get a car, free bats and kit etc. They will also expect to get a benefit season towards the end, useful for setting up the next stage of their lives. I note Brady has career earnings north of 1,000,000 dollars. Letting out the flat you don’t need while globe trotting is just sound business.
Cricketers getting free bats, while being paid £25k a year woophie. Its why so many have to have a second job of some sort (be it more cricket or other off season income). Also making it through 10 years of county cricket is far from a certainty. And its a pretty shitty life constantly on the road living out of budget hotels.
As for Broady, as explained, his expenses are vast and sponsorship small. I don't have the video link to hand, but he explains if he doesn't win a round at one of the grand slams in a year, he can't pay for his strength and conditioning coach. He spends £12k a year out of his own pocket on restring-ing his rackets alone. The constant travel for tennis is eye wateringly expensive, without the sort of income that say golf can provide.
I think he says from that $1m, he has made about $100k....in 10 years.
Yes, to be clear I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The top end really distorts perceptions about how much money sport pays.
Yes and no. Tennis is problematic because if you are 100th in the world, you play basically always play the top guys in R1 and go home with no money.
Something like golf, the base is much wider in terms of pay outs, but also you don't have to beat the World #1 to make any money. You can be 200-300th (even lower) in the world at golf and be earning a very decent living.
I’m sure you are right, but don’t they have similar issues re coaches, caddy, constant travel etc too? But yes it does seem easier to earn at a lower level.
take the 100th best at a sport in the world--
Golf - millionaire perhaps ? 6 figure earnings annually Tennis - Not far away from golf Athletics - relying on a 20-30k a year UK sport grant probably Snooker - on the breadline Darts - is a postman/builder Cricket -60k a year playing as a senior pro at county/state level? Football - multi milliionaire ,fawned by fans earning 7 figure sums annually .
Always be a footballer!!
Golf - sportswear sponsorship with Bangladesh sweatshop. Itchy crotch. Tennis - dubious relationship with Russian petro-billionaire Athletics - face on mid-range supermarket back-to-school instore branding Snooker - spend your weekend driving to Doncaster in a third-hand Ford Ka for a regional tournament. Knocked out in the 2nd qualifying round Darts - earn extra cash giving blowjobs in the pub car park Cricket - weekly column in the small town newspaper until fired when past BNP rally photos emerge Football - in prison awaiting rape trial
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 1h NEW: Another Cabinet row erupted today as two senior ministers clashed over the future of the BBC for the second week running...
Nadine Dorries and Therese Coffey crossed swords again over funding of Beeb - with @thejonnyreilly
This concept of a “household bubble” encompassing the whole of the office complex behind No. 10 is preposterous. After commenting on these laws for almost two years I have never heard anyone propose something like this except as a joke
No10 is prepped for the Gray eport to be public domain tomorrow.
If it's official publication: PM will give a statement post-PMQs & full report will be published at a later date, probs Feb1, when oppo has control of business
If it's leaked, different ball game. No lock in, no statement. Government will encourage oppo to push into Feb1 to go through formal process.
But government fears briefing will push the leak.
There are three factions pushing the leak
1) Tories who want Boris gone. They just want their day in court 2) Oppo who are worried Police investigation pulls the teeth from Gray report so put pressure on it coming out asap 3) Boris supporters who think report will not meet the hype so get it out asap
Government is basically ready to fight this whatever happens. Boris wants to be PM and wants to not be kneecapped. Rumour has it some (not in government, backbench supporters with legal background) are even making arguments that the Tory party constitution isn't legally binding
Meanwhile the Boris out crowd is pushing for 22 to rewrite the rules to change 12 month lock to six. This is going to be horrible messy. A leak would be the messiest way to kick off months of horror
That sounds crazy, but totally believable, having watched Dicks interrogation, her hair looked smart by the way, she laid out the criteria for a retrospective investigation, three things, and as she said them I thought each one should apply to everything already in media as they against rules - but then she said there’s some instances they are not touching, and won’t be investigated. straight away I am thinking, Ah. There’s some such that obvious partying, suitcases, DJ, kiddies toys at 1am - but Boris wasn’t at any of those - there’s a different category that are more like a work event (don’t shoot the rabbit, I isn’t saying they are not breaking any rules) Boris may have, for a bit of time been at couple of them.
You are smart people on here, you get my drift. Even at this stage we smarts enough to guess who is getting, what’s only little slap really, and who ain’t getting slapped.
I put it like this. The political damage here is to Boris reputation for telling truth. The crime is lying to the commons. If he escapes the wee slap from the police investigation it shouldn’t make a bit of difference, yet it’s being set up as exoneration.
It's not much of a silver lining to an unfolding national catastrophe but the new editor of the Daily Mail's decision to go all in on backing Johnson looks like one of the worst calls in the history of Fleet Street. https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1485684231749746688
Why? 78% of Mail readers voted Tory or UKIP in 2015 and 49% of 2019 Con voters want Boris to stay, only 38% to go
Outside of tennis, in which sport can women earn serious chalk ?
Athletics ironically but you have to be good and good looking (although most athletes are good looking these days - not always was the case with the East Germans!)
As I sip a small glass of Singe Malt and toast my Hibernian ancestors and the immortal bard, I do hope that Johnson has a glass to go with his (political career) revolver. Can he be relied on to do the decent thing? 🤔
Is Singe Malt = Monkey Shoulder?
Mmmm, that’s a bit underhand. Foxy strikes me more of a Lagavulin man
I do like the Islay malts, but tonight have Jura, which is close enough.
At the risk of sounding like a complete pleb, my fave at the moment is Nikka Coffee whiskey.
When I lived in South Africa in the 90s, I bought a couple of malts from the early 70s. One day, I’ll open then (hopefully before I drop dead).
Never heard of it. Best drink up those malts, it could be WW3 before the winter is out, and they would be wasted.
Mmmm, that’s a very good point. I will crack open one as insurance.
The racism furore in county cricket has reignited after the chairman of Middlesex expressed "outdated" stereotypes on why cricket is failing to nurture black and Asian talent.
Azeem Rafiq and Ebony Rainford-Brent expressed outrage after Mike O'Farrell told MPs young black players prefer football and south Asian communities prioritise education.
O'Farrell's comments were immediately likened with the career-ending words of former FA chairman Greg Clarke, who told the same committee in 2020 that south Asian people choose careers in IT over sport.
"The other thing in the diversity bit is that the football and rugby world becomes much more attractive to the Afro-Caribbean community," said the Middlesex chief as he sat alongside other county chairmen at the first parliamentary hearing on cricket since Rafiq's bombshell evidence last November.
"And in terms of the South Asian community, there is a moment where we're finding that they do not want necessarily to commit the same time that is necessary to go to the next step because they sometimes prefer to go into other educational fields, and then cricket becomes secondary. And part of that is because it's a rather more time-consuming sport than some others. So we're finding that's difficult."
Sport should always be secondary to education. I professional sportsperson will have a career of maybe 20 years. A good education lasts for life.
Depends how good you are, if you are an outstanding footballer or cricketer or tennis player or rugby player then you will likely earn more from professional sport than you ever would in any other field.
If you are only average or crap at sport, education is obviously far more important as you have zero chance of a professional sports career but your education level will likely determine your future earnings. You can still play sport for fun or fitness but grades come first
As I noted down thread, "outstanding" tennis. It isn't true. I think most people would say 150th in the world is outstanding, after all your expenses you won't basically take any money at all. Tennis is one of the most top heavy sports going, Nadal, Novax, Federer makes £10 millions a year, Liam Broady (128th in the world) has to have a lodger to pay the rent on his flat.
Cricket, if you only make it to county cricket, again, no you will be on crap money. Minimum county cricket salary is £24k a year. Its only if you make it to international or IPL level that you can make real money.
This is true for most sports. Don’t forget sponsorship though. County cricketers etc get a car, free bats and kit etc. They will also expect to get a benefit season towards the end, useful for setting up the next stage of their lives. I note Brady has career earnings north of 1,000,000 dollars. Letting out the flat you don’t need while globe trotting is just sound business.
Cricketers getting free bats, while being paid £25k a year woophie. Its why so many have to have a second job of some sort (be it more cricket or other off season income). Also making it through 10 years of county cricket is far from a certainty. And its a pretty shitty life constantly on the road living out of budget hotels.
As for Broady, as explained, his expenses are vast and sponsorship small. I don't have the video link to hand, but he explains if he doesn't win a round at one of the grand slams in a year, he can't pay for his strength and conditioning coach. He spends £12k a year out of his own pocket on restring-ing his rackets alone. The constant travel for tennis is eye wateringly expensive, without the sort of income that say golf can provide.
I think he says from that $1m, he has made about $100k....in 10 years.
Yes, to be clear I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The top end really distorts perceptions about how much money sport pays.
Yes and no. Tennis is problematic because if you are 100th in the world, you play basically always play the top guys in R1 and go home with no money.
Something like golf, the base is much wider in terms of pay outs, but also you don't have to beat the World #1 to make any money. You can be 200-300th (even lower) in the world at golf and be earning a very decent living.
I’m sure you are right, but don’t they have similar issues re coaches, caddy, constant travel etc too? But yes it does seem easier to earn at a lower level.
take the 100th best at a sport in the world--
Golf - millionaire perhaps ? 6 figure earnings annually Tennis - Not far away from golf Athletics - relying on a 20-30k a year UK sport grant probably Snooker - on the breadline Darts - is a postman/builder Cricket -60k a year playing as a senior pro at county/state level? Football - multi milliionaire ,fawned by fans earning 7 figure sums annually .
Always be a footballer!!
Golf - sportswear sponsorship with Bangladesh sweatshop. Itchy crotch. Tennis - dubious relationship with Russian petro-billionaire Athletics - face on mid-range supermarket back-to-school instore branding Snooker - spend your weekend driving to Doncaster in a third-hand Ford Ka for a regional tournament. Knocked out in the 2nd qualifying round Darts - earn extra cash giving blowjobs in the pub car park Cricket - weekly column in the small town newspaper until fired when past BNP rally photos emerge Football - in prison awaiting rape trial
Motorsport - if you're doing it you or your mother or father is already rich anyway and even if you're shite in Formula Ford there's a decent chance you'll get to F1 if there's enough cash in the sysem somewhere.
Outside of tennis, in which sport can women earn serious chalk ?
Things like Athletics if you make it. Golf is well paid at the top end.
But it is why certain women's sports are really poor standard e.g. (again) cricket. If you a young girl with real athletic ability, going into something like cricket is even worse idea than for the men, if you care about making any money.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
School isn't a choice. It's mandatory and decisions about it are done on behalf of children who, at the sorts of ages we're talking about, lack the capacity to make these big choices.
If you think all that sounds a bit like whether to pick up Options hot chocolate versus Tesco value cocoa powder, then you're as deluded as anyone can possibly be.
No, school is a choice. Schools which get the best results get more pupils wanting to go to them.
That applies the same as any other product or business or a shop. Ideologically socialists oppose choice and want to nationalise everything and restrict choice in everything, conservatives back choice including free schools, academies, education vouchers, grammars, church schools etc so parents can choose the best school for their child
This concept of a “household bubble” encompassing the whole of the office complex behind No. 10 is preposterous. After commenting on these laws for almost two years I have never heard anyone propose something like this except as a joke
You can see their utterly desperate logic as the sans culottes pull up outside the palace. Their house is Downing Street. Therefore everyone in Downing Street counts as 'family' who 'live' with them.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
But the essence of grammar schools isn't parental choice- it's Blankshire County Council (or School Consortium these days) saying which children they are willing to let into this school. And, whatever the ideal of untutorable IQ tests, the reality is that very few bright-but-poor kids make it into grammar schools these days- a few years spending on tutoring trumps raw talent.
There are two genuine but wicked problems at play here. One is the one @eek points out- there's a limit to what schools can do in the face of parental reluctance/resistance. The place where I was a governor was beaten against that rock on a daily basis. The other is that parental choice only really works if there's enough spare capacity in the system for parents to have meaningful choice between several available places. The system doesn't have the money to do that, and the difficulty in cramming a thirty-first child in each class (let alone a thirty-fifth) doesn't help.
It's a horrible problem, but adding admissions exams isn't the solution, unless you are nostalgic for the 1950's. (Then, rationing academic education with graduate teachers was sensible and zeitgeisty. Things have changed.)
Can I point out I've also covered your spare capacity point twice now in replies to HYUFD - it's scary how often you see stories about people who discover that because they live in a particular part of town they literally have 1 choice of primary and secondary school. There were stories last April of children with no school place as they were outside the distance for all schools that year even though they lived in the middle of a town.
Round here every house to the west of mine has a choice of 1 poor secondary school. We know as we got our second choice school back in the day, and those places went to our neighbour when we got into our first choice school on appeal.
The reason behind that is that those houses are all newly built post 2000 housing estates extending 1.5 miles to the motorway. They built the houses but nothing has come of the secondary school that was promised so they get the sink school that's had 7 different trusts trying to fix it as it's the one that strangely has spaces.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 1h NEW: Another Cabinet row erupted today as two senior ministers clashed over the future of the BBC for the second week running...
Nadine Dorries and Therese Coffey crossed swords again over funding of Beeb - with @thejonnyreilly
I would not want to be crossing Therese Coffey’s sword for all the tea in China.
Apart from anything else they should listen to her voice from middle england where antiques roadshow and line of duty and archers are loved and not mad vandals who want to smash the bbc because its news output is not a rightwing version of Pravda with extra climate change denial thrown in.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
What's this about the Tory Party rules not being enforceable?
Doesn't matter. If 42-odd Tories vote with opposition on a house-wide VONC then he is no longer PM anyway (ignoring Sinn F and indies)
Might be a better albeit thermo nuclear way for Tory Johnson-haters to have done with him.
0 Tory MPs will vote for a VONC and risk a general election and losing their seats or losing their Ministerial office
All a VONC demonstrates is that the current government does not enjoy the confidence of the house - it does not automatically lead to a GE - I’m pretty sure the Tories would get someone to go to the Palace PDQ to tell the Queen that they did enjoy the confidence of the house and a new government would be formed.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"
You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 1h NEW: Another Cabinet row erupted today as two senior ministers clashed over the future of the BBC for the second week running...
Nadine Dorries and Therese Coffey crossed swords again over funding of Beeb - with @thejonnyreilly
I would not want to be crossing Therese Coffey’s sword for all the tea in China.
Apart from anything else they should listen to her voice from middle england where antiques roadshow and line of duty and archers are loved and not mad vandals who want to smash the bbc because its news output is not a rightwing version of Pravda with extra climate change denial thrown in.
Mad vandalism is all the Boris and his outriders have left.
What's this about the Tory Party rules not being enforceable?
Doesn't matter. If 42-odd Tories vote with opposition on a house-wide VONC then he is no longer PM anyway (ignoring Sinn F and indies)
Might be a better albeit thermo nuclear way for Tory Johnson-haters to have done with him.
0 Tory MPs will vote for a VONC and risk a general election and losing their seats or losing their Ministerial office
All a VONC demonstrates is that the current government does not enjoy the confidence of the house - it does not automatically lead to a GE - I’m pretty sure the Tories would get someone to go to the Palace PDQ to tell the Queen that they did enjoy the confidence of the house and a new government would be formed.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"
You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.
If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
You attend church yet you support a distinctly shady character like the PM?
What's this about the Tory Party rules not being enforceable?
Doesn't matter. If 42-odd Tories vote with opposition on a house-wide VONC then he is no longer PM anyway (ignoring Sinn F and indies)
Might be a better albeit thermo nuclear way for Tory Johnson-haters to have done with him.
0 Tory MPs will vote for a VONC and risk a general election and losing their seats or losing their Ministerial office
All a VONC demonstrates is that the current government does not enjoy the confidence of the house - it does not automatically lead to a GE - I’m pretty sure the Tories would get someone to go to the Palace PDQ to tell the Queen that they did enjoy the confidence of the house and a new government would be formed.
Not unless they could also command a majority of Tory MPs and a majority of the House
But in that statement Jacob Rees-Mogg confirms that we need electoral reform so I look forward to his forthcoming proposals. I'm sure @TSE has some great ideas on possible options.
What's this about the Tory Party rules not being enforceable?
Doesn't matter. If 42-odd Tories vote with opposition on a house-wide VONC then he is no longer PM anyway (ignoring Sinn F and indies)
Might be a better albeit thermo nuclear way for Tory Johnson-haters to have done with him.
0 Tory MPs will vote for a VONC and risk a general election and losing their seats or losing their Ministerial office
All a VONC demonstrates is that the current government does not enjoy the confidence of the house - it does not automatically lead to a GE - I’m pretty sure the Tories would get someone to go to the Palace PDQ to tell the Queen that they did enjoy the confidence of the house and a new government would be formed.
Jacob Rees-Mogg says on @BBCNewsnight that "a change of leader requires a general election". Says UK is now effectively a "presidential system" and "the mandate is personal rather than entirely party"
Outside of tennis, in which sport can women earn serious chalk ?
Things like Athletics if you make it. Golf is well paid at the top end.
But it is why certain women's sports are really poor standard e.g. (again) cricket. If you a young girl with real athletic ability, going into something like cricket is even worse idea than for the men, if you care about making any money.
Top female athlete, doing golden league (is that still a thing?), plus endorsements would be up there. But even smaller elite than tennis probably.
You've got to say at the moment no-one in the country is more consistently doing a top notch job of sounding like a total arse than JRM.
He really does make things up as he goes along as well. It'd be one thing if he held archaic or atypical views, but he clearly just invents things when he feels like it with no consistency.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
But the essence of grammar schools isn't parental choice- it's Blankshire County Council (or School Consortium these days) saying which children they are willing to let into this school. And, whatever the ideal of untutorable IQ tests, the reality is that very few bright-but-poor kids make it into grammar schools these days- a few years spending on tutoring trumps raw talent.
There are two genuine but wicked problems at play here. One is the one @eek points out- there's a limit to what schools can do in the face of parental reluctance/resistance. The place where I was a governor was beaten against that rock on a daily basis. The other is that parental choice only really works if there's enough spare capacity in the system for parents to have meaningful choice between several available places. The system doesn't have the money to do that, and the difficulty in cramming a thirty-first child in each class (let alone a thirty-fifth) doesn't help.
It's a horrible problem, but adding admissions exams isn't the solution, unless you are nostalgic for the 1950's. (Then, rationing academic education with graduate teachers was sensible and zeitgeisty. Things have changed.)
Some bright but poor high IQ pupils end up in Outstanding grammars, certainly more than end up in the average Outstanding state comprehensive or academy
What's this about the Tory Party rules not being enforceable?
Doesn't matter. If 42-odd Tories vote with opposition on a house-wide VONC then he is no longer PM anyway (ignoring Sinn F and indies)
Might be a better albeit thermo nuclear way for Tory Johnson-haters to have done with him.
0 Tory MPs will vote for a VONC and risk a general election and losing their seats or losing their Ministerial office
You forget the 14 days to gain confidence. Quite clearly HMQ would take soundings and call up a Tory to try and form a new government, which they would.
Nuclear option, but if Boris nobbles the internal coup such that there is no choice, I think some Tories might just wonder. But, yes, VONCing your own government is at the very reaches of improbable scenarios, even knowing Tory government would return.
Outside of tennis, in which sport can women earn serious chalk ?
Things like Athletics if you make it. Golf is well paid at the top end.
But it is why certain women's sports are really poor standard e.g. (again) cricket. If you a young girl with real athletic ability, going into something like cricket is even worse idea than for the men, if you care about making any money.
Top female athlete, doing golden league (is that still a thing?), plus endorsements would be up there. But even smaller elite than tennis probably.
Definitely women's sport is even more top heavy / concentrated than men.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
But the essence of grammar schools isn't parental choice- it's Blankshire County Council (or School Consortium these days) saying which children they are willing to let into this school. And, whatever the ideal of untutorable IQ tests, the reality is that very few bright-but-poor kids make it into grammar schools these days- a few years spending on tutoring trumps raw talent.
There are two genuine but wicked problems at play here. One is the one @eek points out- there's a limit to what schools can do in the face of parental reluctance/resistance. The place where I was a governor was beaten against that rock on a daily basis. The other is that parental choice only really works if there's enough spare capacity in the system for parents to have meaningful choice between several available places. The system doesn't have the money to do that, and the difficulty in cramming a thirty-first child in each class (let alone a thirty-fifth) doesn't help.
It's a horrible problem, but adding admissions exams isn't the solution, unless you are nostalgic for the 1950's. (Then, rationing academic education with graduate teachers was sensible and zeitgeisty. Things have changed.)
Can I point out I've also covered your spare capacity point twice now in replies to HYUFD - it's scary how often you see stories about people who discover that because they live in a particular part of town they literally have 1 choice of primary and secondary school. There were stories last April of children with no school place as they were outside the distance for all schools that year even though they lived in the middle of a town.
Round here every house to the west of mine has a choice of 1 poor secondary school. We know as we got our second choice school back in the day, and those places went to our neighbour when we got into our first choice school on appeal.
The reason behind that is that those houses are all newly built post 2000 housing estates extending 1.5 miles to the motorway. They built the houses but nothing has come of the secondary school that was promised so they get the sink school that's had 7 different trusts trying to fix it as it's the one that strangely has spaces.
It's even worse when you move house (as people sometimes have to) midway through a schooling stage. When we moved north for a bit, the LEA's original brilliant plan was to send one child to a school 3 miles away from our new address and the other to a school 3 miles away in a different direction. In the end, we got lucky(ish) and got them both into the same (objectively terrible) school.
(And they turned out fine, and are thriving subsequently. Because the dirty secret of improving a school's outcomes is that, even with Value Added, changing the mix of pupils and parents still has a massive effect, often bigger than anything to do with teachers or teaching. Unless the school involved is a real 1% shocker, the most useful things a parent can do is make sure a child is doing homework, listening to Radio 4 and going to museums in the holidays.)
The longer this goes on, I’m afraid the safer Boris is.
Boris is counting on overtaking events to divert us.
What a crook he is. I hope the photos are leaked soon.
British Nixon rather than Trump.
'I welcome this kind of investigation because the people have to know whether or no their Prime Minister is a crook'.
At least Nixon got up to crimes that actually made some sense for him. This lot just could not restrain themselves the way that 50 million odd other Brits managed to do during v trying times and bent and ducked and dived just so they could have a piss up with mates.
And they had the fucking audacity to talk to the rest of us about the Blitz spirit.
Jacob Rees-Mogg says on @BBCNewsnight that "a change of leader requires a general election". Says UK is now effectively a "presidential system" and "the mandate is personal rather than entirely party"
What's this about the Tory Party rules not being enforceable?
Doesn't matter. If 42-odd Tories vote with opposition on a house-wide VONC then he is no longer PM anyway (ignoring Sinn F and indies)
Might be a better albeit thermo nuclear way for Tory Johnson-haters to have done with him.
0 Tory MPs will vote for a VONC and risk a general election and losing their seats or losing their Ministerial office
All a VONC demonstrates is that the current government does not enjoy the confidence of the house - it does not automatically lead to a GE - I’m pretty sure the Tories would get someone to go to the Palace PDQ to tell the Queen that they did enjoy the confidence of the house and a new government would be formed.
Not unless they could also command a majority of Tory MPs and a majority of the House
All those Tory MPs “who’ll lose their seats if there’s a GE”?
Not to pick on him (tell a lie, it is picking on him a bit), but you'd think someone who 'attends Cabinet' rather than 'is a Cabinet Minister' would be conscious of the difference between 'effectively a presidental system' and 'having a presidential system'.
Not even touching on the mandate nonsense, all politicians and most media also talk nonsense about mandates too.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
But the essence of grammar schools isn't parental choice- it's Blankshire County Council (or School Consortium these days) saying which children they are willing to let into this school. And, whatever the ideal of untutorable IQ tests, the reality is that very few bright-but-poor kids make it into grammar schools these days- a few years spending on tutoring trumps raw talent.
There are two genuine but wicked problems at play here. One is the one @eek points out- there's a limit to what schools can do in the face of parental reluctance/resistance. The place where I was a governor was beaten against that rock on a daily basis. The other is that parental choice only really works if there's enough spare capacity in the system for parents to have meaningful choice between several available places. The system doesn't have the money to do that, and the difficulty in cramming a thirty-first child in each class (let alone a thirty-fifth) doesn't help.
It's a horrible problem, but adding admissions exams isn't the solution, unless you are nostalgic for the 1950's. (Then, rationing academic education with graduate teachers was sensible and zeitgeisty. Things have changed.)
Some bright but poor high IQ pupils end up in Outstanding grammars, certainly more than end up in the average Outstanding state comprehensive or academy
Can we see some evidence to back up that as to me it smells like a complete pile of horse manure.
I would say you are pulling "facts" from your backside but we all know you do it all the time.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
You attend church yet you support a distinctly shady character like the PM?
Boris is a Christian, albeit a Catholic, Starmer is an atheist.
Davey to be fair to him is Church of England too.
I could never vote for an atheist, so that rules Starmer out
Jacob Rees-Mogg says on @BBCNewsnight that "a change of leader requires a general election". Says UK is now effectively a "presidential system" and "the mandate is personal rather than entirely party"
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
But the essence of grammar schools isn't parental choice- it's Blankshire County Council (or School Consortium these days) saying which children they are willing to let into this school. And, whatever the ideal of untutorable IQ tests, the reality is that very few bright-but-poor kids make it into grammar schools these days- a few years spending on tutoring trumps raw talent.
There are two genuine but wicked problems at play here. One is the one @eek points out- there's a limit to what schools can do in the face of parental reluctance/resistance. The place where I was a governor was beaten against that rock on a daily basis. The other is that parental choice only really works if there's enough spare capacity in the system for parents to have meaningful choice between several available places. The system doesn't have the money to do that, and the difficulty in cramming a thirty-first child in each class (let alone a thirty-fifth) doesn't help.
It's a horrible problem, but adding admissions exams isn't the solution, unless you are nostalgic for the 1950's. (Then, rationing academic education with graduate teachers was sensible and zeitgeisty. Things have changed.)
Some bright but poor high IQ pupils end up in Outstanding grammars, certainly more than end up in the average Outstanding state comprehensive or academy
Can I some evidence to back up what to me smells like a complete pile of horse manure.
I would say you are pulling "facts" from your backside but we all know you do it all the time.
Blatantly obvious, grammars select on IQ, Outstanding comprehensives and academies select on house price or church attendance
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"
You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.
If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.
Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"
You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.
If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.
Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
School isn't a choice. It's mandatory and decisions about it are done on behalf of children who, at the sorts of ages we're talking about, lack the capacity to make these big choices.
If you think all that sounds a bit like whether to pick up Options hot chocolate versus Tesco value cocoa powder, then you're as deluded as anyone can possibly be.
No, school is a choice. Schools which get the best results get more pupils wanting to go to them.
That applies the same as any other product or business or a shop. Ideologically socialists oppose choice and want to nationalise everything and restrict choice in everything, conservatives back choice including free schools, academies, education vouchers, grammars etc so parents can choose the best school for their child
School is NOT a choice. You have to go.
And again, it's nothing at all like shopping. The end user isn't making their own decisions, you can't just chop and change. if the Tesco staff are suddenly shit, you can switch to Asda tomorrow and never go back. If your child is at a school that starts to go wrong, you can't just turn on a sixpence and change. So there's HUGE pressure to choose what you think is the best. And -- are you still paying attention? because this is the suckerpunch -- the quality of a school depends massively on who goes there. A concentration of disruptive pupils leads to staff churn leads to poor reputation and quickly you have a sink school. That's what choice does. Even more so when you have barriers to entry to some schools. Religion, money, performance. All of these things stratify schools and leave some schools trapped in failure.
Feedback loops in quality are a FEATURE of selection. It's the whole point. So when you're in favour of choice, you're in favour of concentrating quality and leaving many children behind. You're setting up the losers to fail. You know it, we know you know it, and you know that we know you know it.
It's time you dropped the free-market ideology in this sector because it doesn't work in the same way as supermarkets. Or just admit you're fine with systematically writing off huge numbers of children.
That’s why when Theresa May became prime minister in 2016, she called an immediate general election in…2017.
And when she stepped down in July 2019, her successor Boris Johnson definitely didn’t to pass once-in-a-generation treaties before calling an election in…December.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"
You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.
If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.
Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
You are a wet, left liberal, socialist, exactly the type of person I consider my political enemy.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
You attend church yet you support a distinctly shady character like the PM?
Boris is a Christian, albeit a Catholic
Boris is a liar. Aren't you familiar with "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbour"?
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
But the essence of grammar schools isn't parental choice- it's Blankshire County Council (or School Consortium these days) saying which children they are willing to let into this school. And, whatever the ideal of untutorable IQ tests, the reality is that very few bright-but-poor kids make it into grammar schools these days- a few years spending on tutoring trumps raw talent.
There are two genuine but wicked problems at play here. One is the one @eek points out- there's a limit to what schools can do in the face of parental reluctance/resistance. The place where I was a governor was beaten against that rock on a daily basis. The other is that parental choice only really works if there's enough spare capacity in the system for parents to have meaningful choice between several available places. The system doesn't have the money to do that, and the difficulty in cramming a thirty-first child in each class (let alone a thirty-fifth) doesn't help.
It's a horrible problem, but adding admissions exams isn't the solution, unless you are nostalgic for the 1950's. (Then, rationing academic education with graduate teachers was sensible and zeitgeisty. Things have changed.)
Some bright but poor high IQ pupils end up in Outstanding grammars, certainly more than end up in the average Outstanding state comprehensive or academy
Can I some evidence to back up what to me smells like a complete pile of horse manure.
I would say you are pulling "facts" from your backside but we all know you do it all the time.
Blatantly obvious, grammars select on IQ, Outstanding comprehensives and academies select on house price or church attendance
Nope Grammar schools select on the basis of a child's ability to pass an exam.
We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.
Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
So again you are talking horse manure that we've already shown to be false once yet you simple repeat the same set of utterly false stories.
It's hardly surprising that you love Boris so much, he literally is the role model you are trying and utterly failing to emulate
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
You attend church every week to pray forgiveness for all that you are.
So you get more Grammar schools, sinking those who fail the exam on the day into a live of reduced advantages.
I take it you didn't go to a Grammar school and were privately educated?
Most of the pressure for extra grammar school places is in existing grammar areas, especially Kent.
That's fair enough, the secondary moderns (for that is what they are, even if they rebrand themselves) in 11+ areas have an insanely difficult task, which they struggle with massively. If there were a risk of my children ending up in them, that would be a big worry for me.
But by adding more GS places in selective areas, you end up making the grammar schools (a bit) more comprehensive. Ironic, really.
Meanwhile, in areas where there aren't secondary modern schools, there really isn't pressure to create grammar schools.
La Thatch knew what she was doing.
As I pointed out below the issue in areas with comprehensive schools is that you end up with 1 or 2 great comprehensives that are often in the expensive part of town away from the council estates.
Now most council estate children and parents won't want their children to go to that school but the parents that do should be granted the first places available rather than being rejected on distance grounds.
That isn't a problem round here as the best local comprehensive games the system to get them in.
So you are still selecting unless you force all council estate children to go to that school and all middle class parents to go there too in equal proportions.
You may as well force every shopper to go to Tesco and ban Waitrose, M and S, Asda and Lidl. Same socialist answer to everything, end choice, dictate and force everyone to only have one service they are allowed to use
Once again read what I posted and think - because you haven't read it.
There is a choice (which in your world doesn't exist at all) and most people take the easy option but it's available to all who want it. There is no selection involved here at all, parents choice the school and the school pulls the tricks it can to get the disadvantaged children into that school.
And as I said wait until you have children (God forbid) and enter the world of School Admissions where you will probably discover that due to admission criteria you have a chance of admission into 1 school and it won't be the one you want.
Wrong, I attend church every week and we have an outstanding church school nearby which selects based on church attendance.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
So have gamed the system and are "all right Jack"
You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.
If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
You may be a member of the Church of England but I don't think you are a christian in any way shape or form.
Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
You are a wet, left liberal, socialist, exactly the type of person I consider my political enemy.
I could not care less what you think of me
You are a wet, left liberal, socialist REMAIN voter! You are merely pretending to be a Tory!
No, if you are committed to attend Church regularly with your children then you are entitled to choose a school which selects similarly mainly Christian children.
If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
Rather like being insufficiently Conservative? In another era, you'd have had a great career in the Spanish Inquisition, seeking out the insufficiently fervent with awesome dedication.
Comments
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
1h
NEW: Another Cabinet row erupted today as two senior ministers clashed over the future of the BBC for the second week running...
Nadine Dorries and Therese Coffey crossed swords again over funding of Beeb - with
@thejonnyreilly
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1486076430786179085
I think it was Peter Kennaugh on the Tour de France coverage last year said he made more money in a single year he didn't even ride the grand tours than basically the rest of his career, because Team Sky totally dominated and for that year they paid even split to everybody who was a member of the team.
Interestingly, one of the mixed race boys moved away from Ilford in 1990 and was replaced by a certain Alex Hilton!
Now if you get a reputation as a world class T20 player, now if you are willing to travel the world every year, you can earn a decent wage. That's a hard life though, being away from home for 6+ months of the year.
The 200th ranked player on the US PGA Tour of golf still win $250k and they are probably only 300-400th in the world.
There are two genuine but wicked problems at play here. One is the one @eek points out- there's a limit to what schools can do in the face of parental reluctance/resistance. The place where I was a governor was beaten against that rock on a daily basis. The other is that parental choice only really works if there's enough spare capacity in the system for parents to have meaningful choice between several available places. The system doesn't have the money to do that, and the difficulty in cramming a thirty-first child in each class (let alone a thirty-fifth) doesn't help.
It's a horrible problem, but adding admissions exams isn't the solution, unless you are nostalgic for the 1950's. (Then, rationing academic education with graduate teachers was sensible and zeitgeisty. Things have changed.)
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1486103796862365699?s=20
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1486107688668958722
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1486103375754235913?s=20
Outside of tennis, in which sport can women earn serious chalk ?
https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1486107994895093766
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1486103796862365699
It's not much of a silver lining to an unfolding national catastrophe but the new editor of the Daily Mail's decision to go all in on backing Johnson looks like one of the worst calls in the history of Fleet Street.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1485684231749746688
If you grow up in an inner city (ex-London), it is almost certain you won’t get the diversity Foxy talks about.
Tennis - dubious relationship with Russian petro-billionaire
Athletics - face on mid-range supermarket back-to-school instore branding
Snooker - spend your weekend driving to Doncaster in a third-hand Ford Ka for a regional tournament. Knocked out in the 2nd qualifying round
Darts - earn extra cash giving blowjobs in the pub car park
Cricket - weekly column in the small town newspaper until fired when past BNP rally photos emerge
Football - in prison awaiting rape trial
New: Boris Johnson & Carrie brooded at Chequers this weekend in confusion as they do not think they have done anything wrong.
They consider lockdown gatherings in No 10 to have been part of a "household bubble".
They do not seem to grasp public anger. https://newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/01/boris-johnson-is-entering-his-moment-of-greatest-peril
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/1486068501509021698?s=20
Might be a better albeit thermo nuclear way for Tory Johnson-haters to have done with him.
You are smart people on here, you get my drift. Even at this stage we smarts enough to guess who is getting, what’s only little slap really, and who ain’t getting slapped.
I put it like this. The political damage here is to Boris reputation for telling truth. The crime is lying to the commons. If he escapes the wee slap from the police investigation it shouldn’t make a bit of difference, yet it’s being set up as exoneration.
Boris is going nowhere unless and until the PCP discover a backbone, which they won’t.
Gray - if it ever arrives - will be boring and tell us what we already know, I suspect.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1485985006472376322?s=20
But it is why certain women's sports are really poor standard e.g. (again) cricket. If you a young girl with real athletic ability, going into something like cricket is even worse idea than for the men, if you care about making any money.
That applies the same as any other product or business or a shop. Ideologically socialists oppose choice and want to nationalise everything and restrict choice in everything, conservatives back choice including free schools, academies, education vouchers, grammars, church schools etc so parents can choose the best school for their child
Round here every house to the west of mine has a choice of 1 poor secondary school. We know as we got our second choice school back in the day, and those places went to our neighbour when we got into our first choice school on appeal.
The reason behind that is that those houses are all newly built post 2000 housing estates extending 1.5 miles to the motorway. They built the houses but nothing has come of the secondary school that was promised so they get the sink school that's had 7 different trusts trying to fix it as it's the one that strangely has spaces.
There are grammar schools in Chelmsford. I am all for as much choice as possible
You really do sum up why I left the Church of England.
Says UK is now effectively a "presidential system" and "the mandate is personal rather than entirely party"
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1486111189541265408
If you disagree, you are no great loss to the Church of England anyway
But in that statement Jacob Rees-Mogg confirms that we need electoral reform so I look forward to his forthcoming proposals. I'm sure @TSE has some great ideas on possible options.
Desperate chancers in the saloon beyond the Last Chance.
Come the fall they will be back on the back benches.
Jacob Rees-Mogg says on @BBCNewsnight that "a change of leader requires a general election".
Says UK is now effectively a "presidential system" and "the mandate is personal rather than entirely party"
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1486111189541265408?s=20
I’ve no doubt it’s his idea to cast doubt on the legality of Tory Party VONCs too.
The man should be impeached, horsewhipped, and exiled.
Nuclear option, but if Boris nobbles the internal coup such that there is no choice, I think some Tories might just wonder. But, yes, VONCing your own government is at the very reaches of improbable scenarios, even knowing Tory government would return.
(And they turned out fine, and are thriving subsequently. Because the dirty secret of improving a school's outcomes is that, even with Value Added, changing the mix of pupils and parents still has a massive effect, often bigger than anything to do with teachers or teaching. Unless the school involved is a real 1% shocker, the most useful things a parent can do is make sure a child is doing homework, listening to Radio 4 and going to museums in the holidays.)
And they had the fucking audacity to talk to the rest of us about the Blitz spirit.
I think they’d vote for the new government
Not even touching on the mandate nonsense, all politicians and most media also talk nonsense about mandates too.
I would say you are pulling "facts" from your backside but we all know you do it all the time.
Davey to be fair to him is Church of England too.
I could never vote for an atheist, so that rules Starmer out
And he claims he is this great intellectual aristocrat in touch with the wisdom of our forefathers.
He has no idea about the constitution.
I suspect the Queen is pissing herself laughing if she has flicked over from QI reruns.
But rather than argue against the system or approach, he pretends it is what he says it is instead.
Heck I struggle at times to grasp if you are a human being because I've seen Lions with more compassion.
Who needs The Thick of It?
Good night.
And again, it's nothing at all like shopping. The end user isn't making their own decisions, you can't just chop and change. if the Tesco staff are suddenly shit, you can switch to Asda tomorrow and never go back.
If your child is at a school that starts to go wrong, you can't just turn on a sixpence and change. So there's HUGE pressure to choose what you think is the best. And -- are you still paying attention? because this is the suckerpunch -- the quality of a school depends massively on who goes there. A concentration of disruptive pupils leads to staff churn leads to poor reputation and quickly you have a sink school. That's what choice does. Even more so when you have barriers to entry to some schools. Religion, money, performance. All of these things stratify schools and leave some schools trapped in failure.
Feedback loops in quality are a FEATURE of selection. It's the whole point. So when you're in favour of choice, you're in favour of concentrating quality and leaving many children behind. You're setting up the losers to fail. You know it, we know you know it, and you know that we know you know it.
It's time you dropped the free-market ideology in this sector because it doesn't work in the same way as supermarkets. Or just admit you're fine with systematically writing off huge numbers of children.
That’s why when Theresa May became prime minister in 2016, she called an immediate general election in…2017.
And when she stepped down in July 2019, her successor Boris Johnson definitely didn’t to pass once-in-a-generation treaties before calling an election in…December.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1486113102995275778?s=20
I could not care less what you think of me
Who knows. Maybe they are as thick as most of the cabinet.
Via a letter to the Times.
We've already shown in the past that children who have seen the style of exam questions used have a better chance of passing the exam than those who have never seen the questions before.
Heck @Cookie I think gave us evidence of that fact from a school that didn't practice for their local exam and so got far fewer children into the local Grammar Schools than other schools who did practice tests first.
So again you are talking horse manure that we've already shown to be false once yet you simple repeat the same set of utterly false stories.
It's hardly surprising that you love Boris so much, he literally is the role model you are trying and utterly failing to emulate
You should probably start going daily.