Only on PB would the cost of repairing shoes, at higher cost than most people spend on a new pair of shoes, be considered good value.
The whole point of the discussion is the high cost (relatively) of repairing shoes. If you have a £50 pair of leather shoes and are charged £100 for repairing them what is your next move?
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
The Telegraph says there has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph along those lines. It may be that there has been. Equally, it may be that it is exactly what the Telegraph would say.
Journalistic standards at the Telegraph have absolutely gone down the toilet over the last couple of years. They've always had a particular perspective on the world, but I'm not sure I believe it's reliable when they cite "sources" as saying things any more.
Fixed for you....
E.g. one of BBC very first BBC Verify reports got a number of key (easily checkable) facts wrong.
Whilst I agree to an extent, there's quite a big difference between a genuine (if shoddy) mistake and lying. I think the Telegraph has been thoroughly Johnson-ised in recent years, which is a shame as it was a very respectable newspaper at one time.
I think the BBC verify reporter wasn't dissimilar. Bit like the Telegraph or the Sun, they took somebodies claims, didn't fact check them because their bias made it seem that it must be true and then twisted some other facts to fit the narrative. They couldn't provide any receipts for their claims, which for a service that is supposed to be THE "fact checker" is rather concerning.
That is always the problem with so-called "fact checkers" - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Snopes always did a good job when it was debunking myths by linking to sources etc, before "fact checkers" became common. Now every media source seems to have its own "fact checking" service, but they very rarely seem to bother with sources well.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
If school fees were the only thing going up then not a problem however increases between 2003 to recently weren’t also competing with a cost of living squeeze.
People who were just managing fee increases because the cost of servicing their mortgages and other debts weren’t increasing now will have the increased school fees through added VAT as well as increased mortgage payments.
It’s a lot easier and quicker to whip your child out of private school and get them educated for free than to sell your house and downsize, even get a mortgage, so I think trying to map attitudes to increased school fees before now and after don’t work.
Use the template of my old school. Charge more than anyone else and give out plenty of scholarships. Particularly sports scholarships. Then you'll get them queuing up. If you make your school appear to be unique you'll fill it up whatever the cost As for those that don't get the pupils let them close down. You'll be doing the parents a favour. Close Eton and Harrow down and you'll be doing all of us a favour.
PS Time to choose a new DG for the BBC. Just NOT a TORY this time please. The man is useless and he's slowly destroying it. This should be Starmer's job number one
My school did that. I only found out fairly recently. I was in a conversation with ten friends from school - it turned out by far the majority of us were on scholarships. It had never really struck me before - but all the conspicuously rich kids were not really desperately bright.
Not Manchester Grammar? No it can't have been. They were all bright there. That's where my brother went.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
We are allowed opinions. You have judged me - most unfairly and hurtfully - on other topics.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
The other week you said: ""Oh and I criticise both men and women for how they look and dress because I think that when people go out in public they should make an effort to be presentable at the very least and elegant at best. If you cannot be bothered to make that effort stay at home. "
I will judge you on your words - in the same way you seem very open to harshly and unfairly judge others.
I do think that people should make an effort to look presentable. If you need specialist shoes there is no issue. Having specialist ones is not the same as having smelly old trainers which is bad for your feet and unappealing.
As for harsh and unfair judgments, you need to look at the beam in your eye. You have very harshly judged me in a way that has been extremely unjust and hurtful and which led me to leaving this site for a while. If I think about it again I will get very angry again at you and, believe me, this time I might say things you will not like.
So I won't and will concentrate on choosing my shoes for the day and getting on with it.
BTW I don't know if you've ever walked the coast path in the Lakes but if not you should. It is very beautiful. I have recently done part of it and it is quite enchanting.
I cannot think of what I've said to you in the past that has led you to being off the site for a while. I have discussed - firmly - trans issues with you, something where the differences between us are minor but a gulf rhetorically. But don't expect me not to counter your argument when you say silly things - such as the above.
Do not try to close down debate by saying stuff like that.
You have zero idea about the problems shoes cause me, and why I might just want to use them until they are more than a little worn out. I've been blooming lucky to get to where I have, and do not want to experience the pain again - as frequently happens with new shoes.
As for looking presentable: I am a runner and (sometime) hiker. Yesterday I did a 10K run in the heat and ended my run at the school, sweaty and dishevelled. If anyone objected to that, then it's their issue, not mine. When I got home I showered and changed.
I really don't know why my views on shoes and clothes bother you. If you have medical problems with your feet I have every sympathy and can quite see why you buy shoes that work for you.
As for what you said to me in the past, it was deeply offensive and upsetting and the fact that you don't remember or can't think what it was is not a surprise to me. But since I do not wish to dwell on it, that is the end of it. I am well aware you don't like me but this is a forum for discussion not about making friends so it does not matter.
You are being silly referring to runners. Of course they and hikers etc will look sweaty. No-one - least of all me - has any issue with that. I am quite a keen walker myself tho' nothing on your scale and, having recently received good medical news affecting my legs, I am planning some longer walks near where I live.
But the visual environment around us affects all of us so it pains me to see horrible and badly maintained buildings, tatty front gardens - don't get me started on plastic grass - litter and people looking dirty and ill-dressed or, more accurately, unsuitably dressed for the circumstances or, and I used to see this on the tube, people (often women) doing their make up. Can't they get up 5 minutes earlier? The worst was seeing someone floss their teeth. On the tube. I ask you.
Visual beauty is a joy. We can all play our part in making public spaces attractive, including how we appear in them.
Just been out on a practice driving run with the eldest. Some absolutely /shocking/ driving out there - a good chunk of the session was spent saying “whatever you do, don’t do that!”
Never get overly attached to anything inanimate, it's not wrong, just pointless
Things are just things. Books are just books. Furniture, houses, cars, whatever, they can all be replaced and emotional time spent on them is largely wasted
When the plague hit and I thought I might never see my London flat as I fled for the sticks, I honestly appraised all the things that would really upset me if I never saw them again. I was brutal. In the end these things filled about half a shoebox
It's a good exercise. Imagine your house being nuked. What would REALLY distress you, if everything was fried forever?
This is even truer in an age when so much can be stored (esp photos) in the cloud, for eternity
Most people who have divorced will have reached the same conclusion
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Only on PB would the cost of repairing shoes, at higher cost than most people spend on a new pair of shoes, be considered good value.
All part of the analysis of the class struggle, comrade. Unfortunately Big Boot has fucked up shoe repairs for the little guy.
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.'
Never get overly attached to anything inanimate, it's not wrong, just pointless
Things are just things. Books are just books. Furniture, houses, cars, whatever, they can all be replaced and emotional time spent on them is largely wasted
When the plague hit and I thought I might never see my London flat as I fled for the sticks, I honestly appraised all the things that would really upset me if I never saw them again. I was brutal. In the end these things filled about half a shoebox
It's a good exercise. Imagine your house being nuked. What would REALLY distress you, if everything was fried forever?
This is even truer in an age when so much can be stored (esp photos) in the cloud, for eternity
I agree with this completely. I don't own a single thing that I really care about (apart from a cat, who can look after himself). The only things that matter to me are the people in my life.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
I imagine Victoria Derbyshire is having a tough meeting with management today after last nights multiple bollock dropping on Newsnight about this story.
The public version of the judgment that imposed an interim gagging order on the BBC on 29 June on an application by a chap known as "WFZ" is poorly written:
"the BBC has found that at least a quarter of businesses in the sector in which the Claimant works have had employees investigated by the police for serious sexual offences, yet despite this the sector does not have any policies or procedures for employees who are accused of violence against women, nor any consistency of approach to allegations". (BBM).
In how many sectors does it make sense 1) to consider all the businesses as in some way equivalent and listable so that you can then proceed to say well at least a quarter of them are this or that, and then 2) to observe that there's no consistent policy across the sector, implying that there could and should be, and furthermore 3) in which there is a person who is described as "a nationally (and internationally) known name"?
That's not financial services, accountancy, banking. It's not drama, music, or retail. It's not construction or information technology. It's not manufacturing, road haulage, agriculture. It's not the law or medicine. It's not television or film production. It's not local government or care homes. It's not advertising or "influencing". It's not even estate agency.
There's only about one thing it could be.
The judge, Rowena Collins Rice, was actually secretary to the Leveson inquiry too.
Just been out on a practice driving run with the eldest. Some absolutely /shocking/ driving out there - a good chunk of the session was spent saying “whatever you do, don’t do that!”
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
Why can't we have specialist schools in the state system?
We absolutely can, and we should.
But if you think that Starmer is going to magically create establishments of the calibre of the best music or autism independent schools overnight, with the same staff-to-pupil ratio and spend per pupil, I have several bridges to sell you. Labour isn't even promising to reverse decades of cuts to SEND provision in state schools, let alone plough extra money into specialist education.
Good to see the PB supply of bridges remains undiminished.
Never get overly attached to anything inanimate, it's not wrong, just pointless
Things are just things. Books are just books. Furniture, houses, cars, whatever, they can all be replaced and emotional time spent on them is largely wasted
When the plague hit and I thought I might never see my London flat as I fled for the sticks, I honestly appraised all the things that would really upset me if I never saw them again. I was brutal. In the end these things filled about half a shoebox
It's a good exercise. Imagine your house being nuked. What would REALLY distress you, if everything was fried forever?
This is even truer in an age when so much can be stored (esp photos) in the cloud, for eternity
BBC reporting on itself....BBC sent one email, got no reply, and attempted to make one phone call , which didn't connect.
The glee with which the BBC deals with any story about the BBC is always quite baffling. Until you consider that the BBC is not one massive megabrain but is made up of thousands of individuals, many of whom have built up massive resentments against other individuals or the institution as a whole.
Also it's quite an easy story for them to report on. No tedious trips to dull or far flung locations.
Sky News is all over it. If the BBC didn't give it big coverage everyone would be asking why not.
I thought Neil Wallis was pretty outrageous on Sky News. Claiming this was the BBC's equivalent of the Schofield scandal - conveniently forgetting that n that case Schofield admitted to behaving inappropriately - and also bringing up Jimmy Saville for good measure.
An allegation was made to the BBC by a third party. They made no attempt to follow up on their allegation. They then went to a newspaper. Surely there are crackpot allegations being made about BBC stars all the time. What are they supposed to do?
To be honest this is probably a timely reminder for the BBC to strengthen their complaints processes (possibly backed up by HR and in house legal).
Yes they must get a lot of bonkers allegations coming through to them all the time. I would suspect however that a single email and a call that doesn’t connect isn’t a particularly robust response to trying to get in touch with someone. A follow up email at the very least and a recorded delivery letter (as someone mentioned above) would be far better at demonstrating intent.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
It's an offshoot of pensionerism. As society and politics becomes dominated by older boomers, the state will move/has moved from treating people as free autonomous adults with responsibility for themselves, to non-autonomous children that must be protected, housed and fed into their late 20's, early 30's. Note the continuing rise of average age at first child.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
From the point of view of the mother making the allegations, her child may be 20 but is still her child. Unfortunately it does blur questions around the propriety or legality of what went on.
Only on PB would the cost of repairing shoes, at higher cost than most people spend on a new pair of shoes, be considered good value.
All part of the analysis of the class struggle, comrade. Unfortunately Big Boot has fucked up shoe repairs for the little guy.
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.'
I’m just shocked anyone spends £100 getting shoes repaired, even in London.
Thirty quid to resole a pair in Chadsmoor. When I paid £155 for the shoes that’s a good deal.
Never get overly attached to anything inanimate, it's not wrong, just pointless
Things are just things. Books are just books. Furniture, houses, cars, whatever, they can all be replaced and emotional time spent on them is largely wasted
When the plague hit and I thought I might never see my London flat as I fled for the sticks, I honestly appraised all the things that would really upset me if I never saw them again. I was brutal. In the end these things filled about half a shoebox
It's a good exercise. Imagine your house being nuked. What would REALLY distress you, if everything was fried forever?
This is even truer in an age when so much can be stored (esp photos) in the cloud, for eternity
Most people who have divorced will have reached the same conclusion
Only on PB would the cost of repairing shoes, at higher cost than most people spend on a new pair of shoes, be considered good value.
A variation on poverty being an expensive business. I probably spend more on new shoes as a proportion of my total disposable income than well-heeled PBers, simply because they fall apart all the time.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
Why can't we have specialist schools in the state system?
We absolutely can, and we should.
But if you think that Starmer is going to magically create establishments of the calibre of the best music or autism independent schools overnight, with the same staff-to-pupil ratio and spend per pupil, I have several bridges to sell you. Labour isn't even promising to reverse decades of cuts to SEND provision in state schools, let alone plough extra money into specialist education.
Good to see the PB supply of bridges remains undiminished.
In Gloucestershire we have seven times Severn of them.
Only on PB would the cost of repairing shoes, at higher cost than most people spend on a new pair of shoes, be considered good value.
A variation on poverty being an expensive business. I probably spend more on new shoes as a proportion of my total disposable income than well-heeled PBers, simply because they fall apart all the time.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
If school fees were the only thing going up then not a problem however increases between 2003 to recently weren’t also competing with a cost of living squeeze.
People who were just managing fee increases because the cost of servicing their mortgages and other debts weren’t increasing now will have the increased school fees through added VAT as well as increased mortgage payments.
It’s a lot easier and quicker to whip your child out of private school and get them educated for free than to sell your house and downsize, even get a mortgage, so I think trying to map attitudes to increased school fees before now and after don’t work.
Use the template of my old school. Charge more than anyone else and give out plenty of scholarships. Particularly sports scholarships. Then you'll get them queuing up. If you make your school appear to be unique you'll fill it up whatever the cost As for those that don't get the pupils let them close down. You'll be doing the parents a favour. Close Eton and Harrow down and you'll be doing all of us a favour.
PS Time to choose a new DG for the BBC. Just NOT a TORY this time please. The man is useless and he's slowly destroying it. This should be Starmer's job number one
My school did that. I only found out fairly recently. I was in a conversation with ten friends from school - it turned out by far the majority of us were on scholarships. It had never really struck me before - but all the conspicuously rich kids were not really desperately bright.
David Cameron (ex-Eton, Oxford and Downing Street) lamented Eton turning its back on rich thickos to become just another academic hothouse.
Only on PB would the cost of repairing shoes, at higher cost than most people spend on a new pair of shoes, be considered good value.
All part of the analysis of the class struggle, comrade. Unfortunately Big Boot has fucked up shoe repairs for the little guy.
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.'
I’m just shocked anyone spends £100 getting shoes repaired, even in London.
Thirty quid to resole a pair in Chadsmoor. When I paid £155 for the shoes that’s a good deal.
Only on PB would the cost of repairing shoes, at higher cost than most people spend on a new pair of shoes, be considered good value.
A variation on poverty being an expensive business. I probably spend more on new shoes as a proportion of my total disposable income than well-heeled PBers, simply because they fall apart all the time.
I read that at first as well-heeled PBers fall apart all the time, which seemed accurate.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
If school fees were the only thing going up then not a problem however increases between 2003 to recently weren’t also competing with a cost of living squeeze.
People who were just managing fee increases because the cost of servicing their mortgages and other debts weren’t increasing now will have the increased school fees through added VAT as well as increased mortgage payments.
It’s a lot easier and quicker to whip your child out of private school and get them educated for free than to sell your house and downsize, even get a mortgage, so I think trying to map attitudes to increased school fees before now and after don’t work.
Use the template of my old school. Charge more than anyone else and give out plenty of scholarships. Particularly sports scholarships. Then you'll get them queuing up. If you make your school appear to be unique you'll fill it up whatever the cost As for those that don't get the pupils let them close down. You'll be doing the parents a favour. Close Eton and Harrow down and you'll be doing all of us a favour.
PS Time to choose a new DG for the BBC. Just NOT a TORY this time please. The man is useless and he's slowly destroying it. This should be Starmer's job number one
My school did that. I only found out fairly recently. I was in a conversation with ten friends from school - it turned out by far the majority of us were on scholarships. It had never really struck me before - but all the conspicuously rich kids were not really desperately bright.
Your last point illustrates why private schools exist. Meanwhile under the Tories, real per pupil spending on state school pupils has fallen by 10%. There isn't yet a nanotechnology available that can produce a violin comensurately small as I ponder the tragedy set to befall pupils in private schools under Labour's VAT plans.
US says ‘intends to move forward’ with transfer of F-16 jets to Turkey, hours after Erdogan relents on Sweden's Nato membership and holds meeting aimed at reheating EU ties https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1678675022997606400
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
We are allowed opinions. You have judged me - most unfairly and hurtfully - on other topics.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
The other week you said: ""Oh and I criticise both men and women for how they look and dress because I think that when people go out in public they should make an effort to be presentable at the very least and elegant at best. If you cannot be bothered to make that effort stay at home. "
I will judge you on your words - in the same way you seem very open to harshly and unfairly judge others.
I do think that people should make an effort to look presentable. If you need specialist shoes there is no issue. Having specialist ones is not the same as having smelly old trainers which is bad for your feet and unappealing.
As for harsh and unfair judgments, you need to look at the beam in your eye. You have very harshly judged me in a way that has been extremely unjust and hurtful and which led me to leaving this site for a while. If I think about it again I will get very angry again at you and, believe me, this time I might say things you will not like.
So I won't and will concentrate on choosing my shoes for the day and getting on with it.
BTW I don't know if you've ever walked the coast path in the Lakes but if not you should. It is very beautiful. I have recently done part of it and it is quite enchanting.
I cannot think of what I've said to you in the past that has led you to being off the site for a while. I have discussed - firmly - trans issues with you, something where the differences between us are minor but a gulf rhetorically. But don't expect me not to counter your argument when you say silly things - such as the above.
Do not try to close down debate by saying stuff like that.
You have zero idea about the problems shoes cause me, and why I might just want to use them until they are more than a little worn out. I've been blooming lucky to get to where I have, and do not want to experience the pain again - as frequently happens with new shoes.
As for looking presentable: I am a runner and (sometime) hiker. Yesterday I did a 10K run in the heat and ended my run at the school, sweaty and dishevelled. If anyone objected to that, then it's their issue, not mine. When I got home I showered and changed.
I really don't know why my views on shoes and clothes bother you. If you have medical problems with your feet I have every sympathy and can quite see why you buy shoes that work for you.
As for what you said to me in the past, it was deeply offensive and upsetting and the fact that you don't remember or can't think what it was is not a surprise to me. But since I do not wish to dwell on it, that is the end of it. I am well aware you don't like me but this is a forum for discussion not about making friends so it does not matter.
You are being silly referring to runners. Of course they and hikers etc will look sweaty. No-one - least of all me - has any issue with that. I am quite a keen walker myself tho' nothing on your scale and, having recently received good medical news affecting my legs, I am planning some longer walks near where I live.
But the visual environment around us affects all of us so it pains me to see horrible and badly maintained buildings, tatty front gardens - don't get me started on plastic grass - litter and people looking dirty and ill-dressed or, more accurately, unsuitably dressed for the circumstances or, and I used to see this on the tube, people (often women) doing their make up. Can't they get up 5 minutes earlier? The worst was seeing someone floss their teeth. On the tube. I ask you.
Visual beauty is a joy. We can all play our part in making public spaces attractive, including how we appear in them.
And yet Naples, which is wonderful, has no end of litter and badly maintained buildings...
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
You'd target them by doing something that wouldn't much make practical difference to them?
This is nowhere near as it difficult as it's been made out to be by the defence since 1945.
Never get overly attached to anything inanimate, it's not wrong, just pointless
Things are just things. Books are just books. Furniture, houses, cars, whatever, they can all be replaced and emotional time spent on them is largely wasted
When the plague hit and I thought I might never see my London flat as I fled for the sticks, I honestly appraised all the things that would really upset me if I never saw them again. I was brutal. In the end these things filled about half a shoebox
It's a good exercise. Imagine your house being nuked. What would REALLY distress you, if everything was fried forever?
This is even truer in an age when so much can be stored (esp photos) in the cloud, for eternity
Would you say people today are attached to their phones, or is it just the idea of a phone, not the actual physical device, so that they could swap one phone for another without a problem, as long as the same data is available on the new one?
It's just data in the phone. Surely no one gets attached to an actual device, which is indistinguishable from seven billion of the same kind, being manufactured every day?
This detachment-from-things is hghly liberating, once you do it. Things are just THINGS. Humans are irreplaceable (for now), and maybe the odd animal you inexplicably love.
But stuff is mere stuff. You can replace it, if you are so minded
In the end I whittled down my list of irreplaceable objects to: 2 books (both unique, personal and NOT replaceable for different reasons), a couple of knives with weird memories attached, and some modest objects collected on my travels (all small, some allegedly valuable (if sold), some not, every one exceedingly unique to me)
That's it. As I say, they failed to fill a shoebox. Everything else I own: meh, whatever, nice to have around, I can buy 'em again
US says ‘intends to move forward’ with transfer of F-16 jets to Turkey, hours after Erdogan relents on Sweden's Nato membership and holds meeting aimed at reheating EU ties https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1678675022997606400
Better inside the tent pissing out.
Contrast with how rewarding our own 'faithful retainer' approach has been over the decades.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
If school fees were the only thing going up then not a problem however increases between 2003 to recently weren’t also competing with a cost of living squeeze.
People who were just managing fee increases because the cost of servicing their mortgages and other debts weren’t increasing now will have the increased school fees through added VAT as well as increased mortgage payments.
It’s a lot easier and quicker to whip your child out of private school and get them educated for free than to sell your house and downsize, even get a mortgage, so I think trying to map attitudes to increased school fees before now and after don’t work.
Use the template of my old school. Charge more than anyone else and give out plenty of scholarships. Particularly sports scholarships. Then you'll get them queuing up. If you make your school appear to be unique you'll fill it up whatever the cost As for those that don't get the pupils let them close down. You'll be doing the parents a favour. Close Eton and Harrow down and you'll be doing all of us a favour.
PS Time to choose a new DG for the BBC. Just NOT a TORY this time please. The man is useless and he's slowly destroying it. This should be Starmer's job number one
My school did that. I only found out fairly recently. I was in a conversation with ten friends from school - it turned out by far the majority of us were on scholarships. It had never really struck me before - but all the conspicuously rich kids were not really desperately bright.
David Cameron (ex-Eton, Oxford and Downing Street) lamented Eton turning its back on rich thickos to become just another academic hothouse.
Eton used to have a system called reading over. Each year 250 boys would assemble and their performances in exams read out to everyone. Starting with the worst performing. The worst performing boys were often called "General Total Failures" and if you happen to have any OE friends of a certain age they will remember this clearly.
The system was in place for many years and then, for some reason or another, was abolished when PB's favourite HRH joined the school.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
You'd target them by doing something that wouldn't much make practical difference to them?
This is nowhere near as it difficult as it's been made out to be by the defence since 1945.
Well, yes. Because it would raise loads of money but not cause additional strains in the state sector.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
We are allowed opinions. You have judged me - most unfairly and hurtfully - on other topics.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
The other week you said: ""Oh and I criticise both men and women for how they look and dress because I think that when people go out in public they should make an effort to be presentable at the very least and elegant at best. If you cannot be bothered to make that effort stay at home. "
I will judge you on your words - in the same way you seem very open to harshly and unfairly judge others.
I do think that people should make an effort to look presentable. If you need specialist shoes there is no issue. Having specialist ones is not the same as having smelly old trainers which is bad for your feet and unappealing.
As for harsh and unfair judgments, you need to look at the beam in your eye. You have very harshly judged me in a way that has been extremely unjust and hurtful and which led me to leaving this site for a while. If I think about it again I will get very angry again at you and, believe me, this time I might say things you will not like.
So I won't and will concentrate on choosing my shoes for the day and getting on with it.
BTW I don't know if you've ever walked the coast path in the Lakes but if not you should. It is very beautiful. I have recently done part of it and it is quite enchanting.
I cannot think of what I've said to you in the past that has led you to being off the site for a while. I have discussed - firmly - trans issues with you, something where the differences between us are minor but a gulf rhetorically. But don't expect me not to counter your argument when you say silly things - such as the above.
Do not try to close down debate by saying stuff like that.
You have zero idea about the problems shoes cause me, and why I might just want to use them until they are more than a little worn out. I've been blooming lucky to get to where I have, and do not want to experience the pain again - as frequently happens with new shoes.
As for looking presentable: I am a runner and (sometime) hiker. Yesterday I did a 10K run in the heat and ended my run at the school, sweaty and dishevelled. If anyone objected to that, then it's their issue, not mine. When I got home I showered and changed.
I really don't know why my views on shoes and clothes bother you. If you have medical problems with your feet I have every sympathy and can quite see why you buy shoes that work for you.
As for what you said to me in the past, it was deeply offensive and upsetting and the fact that you don't remember or can't think what it was is not a surprise to me. But since I do not wish to dwell on it, that is the end of it. I am well aware you don't like me but this is a forum for discussion not about making friends so it does not matter.
You are being silly referring to runners. Of course they and hikers etc will look sweaty. No-one - least of all me - has any issue with that. I am quite a keen walker myself tho' nothing on your scale and, having recently received good medical news affecting my legs, I am planning some longer walks near where I live.
But the visual environment around us affects all of us so it pains me to see horrible and badly maintained buildings, tatty front gardens - don't get me started on plastic grass - litter and people looking dirty and ill-dressed or, more accurately, unsuitably dressed for the circumstances or, and I used to see this on the tube, people (often women) doing their make up. Can't they get up 5 minutes earlier? The worst was seeing someone floss their teeth. On the tube. I ask you.
Visual beauty is a joy. We can all play our part in making public spaces attractive, including how we appear in them.
"As for what you said to me in the past, it was deeply offensive and upsetting and the fact that you don't remember or can't think what it was is not a surprise to me."
Well, that's not much help, is it? Please PM me with details, and if I think I've caused offence then I will wholeheartedly publicly apologise on here.
But to make it clear: when you say stupid or nasty things, expect people to argue with you, although hopefully not in kind. If you take that personally, then understand that the stuff you say can also be taken personally.
And I would argue that if you find the way people dress, or the quality of upkeep of the shoes they wear, to be hurtful enough to call them 'barbarians', or that if they don't match the image you want they should stay at home, then I would argue it's not their problem.
It's your problem.
I've seen women putting make-up on on the tube in the past. It was remarkable, as it was unusual, but I've no idea why they're doing it. Perhaps - as you suggest - it's because they're chaotic and disorganised. Or perhaps they're trying to hold down two jobs and take the kids to school, and there just are not enough hours in the day.
As for old people, my 93-yr old mother lives alone and loves it. Potters round the garden, I visit regularly, has great neighbours, local shop drops round groceries.
That said, a few years ago when she was in a short stay in hospital a water pipe burst and flooded 3/4 of her cottage. It was carnage but...it gave us the opportunity to throw out a ton (literally) of stuff. Everything from books to 1983 receipts to clothes. Including, sadly, many paintings and drawings that my mother had done over the course of her life. Now it was super sad but when else would this be done - after she dies when it would be immeasurably more upsetting. As it was, she half-noticed some stuff had gone, had fun choosing new eg sofas and chairs, and has in general much less stuff and is happy with it.
So my advice is to declutter your aged relatives' homes. Preferably while they are compos mentis and can participate. Didn't Alan Bennett call it something - cutting down the nachlass.
That's actually some really good advice IMO.
Especially as doing so in the aftermath of a death is emotionally draining. In my mother's case, we did so 2 years later and it was a much easier process. I regularly declutter or pass things onto my children or their friends.
Freecycle is also very good for this. I like the idea of something that you've used being used by others rather than being thrown into a dump and the personal connection is nice too.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
We are allowed opinions. You have judged me - most unfairly and hurtfully - on other topics.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
The other week you said: ""Oh and I criticise both men and women for how they look and dress because I think that when people go out in public they should make an effort to be presentable at the very least and elegant at best. If you cannot be bothered to make that effort stay at home. "
I will judge you on your words - in the same way you seem very open to harshly and unfairly judge others.
I do think that people should make an effort to look presentable. If you need specialist shoes there is no issue. Having specialist ones is not the same as having smelly old trainers which is bad for your feet and unappealing.
As for harsh and unfair judgments, you need to look at the beam in your eye. You have very harshly judged me in a way that has been extremely unjust and hurtful and which led me to leaving this site for a while. If I think about it again I will get very angry again at you and, believe me, this time I might say things you will not like.
So I won't and will concentrate on choosing my shoes for the day and getting on with it.
BTW I don't know if you've ever walked the coast path in the Lakes but if not you should. It is very beautiful. I have recently done part of it and it is quite enchanting.
I cannot think of what I've said to you in the past that has led you to being off the site for a while. I have discussed - firmly - trans issues with you, something where the differences between us are minor but a gulf rhetorically. But don't expect me not to counter your argument when you say silly things - such as the above.
Do not try to close down debate by saying stuff like that.
You have zero idea about the problems shoes cause me, and why I might just want to use them until they are more than a little worn out. I've been blooming lucky to get to where I have, and do not want to experience the pain again - as frequently happens with new shoes.
As for looking presentable: I am a runner and (sometime) hiker. Yesterday I did a 10K run in the heat and ended my run at the school, sweaty and dishevelled. If anyone objected to that, then it's their issue, not mine. When I got home I showered and changed.
I really don't know why my views on shoes and clothes bother you. If you have medical problems with your feet I have every sympathy and can quite see why you buy shoes that work for you.
As for what you said to me in the past, it was deeply offensive and upsetting and the fact that you don't remember or can't think what it was is not a surprise to me. But since I do not wish to dwell on it, that is the end of it. I am well aware you don't like me but this is a forum for discussion not about making friends so it does not matter.
You are being silly referring to runners. Of course they and hikers etc will look sweaty. No-one - least of all me - has any issue with that. I am quite a keen walker myself tho' nothing on your scale and, having recently received good medical news affecting my legs, I am planning some longer walks near where I live.
But the visual environment around us affects all of us so it pains me to see horrible and badly maintained buildings, tatty front gardens - don't get me started on plastic grass - litter and people looking dirty and ill-dressed or, more accurately, unsuitably dressed for the circumstances or, and I used to see this on the tube, people (often women) doing their make up. Can't they get up 5 minutes earlier? The worst was seeing someone floss their teeth. On the tube. I ask you.
Visual beauty is a joy. We can all play our part in making public spaces attractive, including how we appear in them.
And yet Naples, which is wonderful, has no end of litter and badly maintained buildings...
... and no cash machines on the street, only inside a building - with a guard stationed outside.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
We are allowed opinions. You have judged me - most unfairly and hurtfully - on other topics.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
The other week you said: ""Oh and I criticise both men and women for how they look and dress because I think that when people go out in public they should make an effort to be presentable at the very least and elegant at best. If you cannot be bothered to make that effort stay at home. "
I will judge you on your words - in the same way you seem very open to harshly and unfairly judge others.
I do think that people should make an effort to look presentable. If you need specialist shoes there is no issue. Having specialist ones is not the same as having smelly old trainers which is bad for your feet and unappealing.
As for harsh and unfair judgments, you need to look at the beam in your eye. You have very harshly judged me in a way that has been extremely unjust and hurtful and which led me to leaving this site for a while. If I think about it again I will get very angry again at you and, believe me, this time I might say things you will not like.
So I won't and will concentrate on choosing my shoes for the day and getting on with it.
BTW I don't know if you've ever walked the coast path in the Lakes but if not you should. It is very beautiful. I have recently done part of it and it is quite enchanting.
I cannot think of what I've said to you in the past that has led you to being off the site for a while. I have discussed - firmly - trans issues with you, something where the differences between us are minor but a gulf rhetorically. But don't expect me not to counter your argument when you say silly things - such as the above.
Do not try to close down debate by saying stuff like that.
You have zero idea about the problems shoes cause me, and why I might just want to use them until they are more than a little worn out. I've been blooming lucky to get to where I have, and do not want to experience the pain again - as frequently happens with new shoes.
As for looking presentable: I am a runner and (sometime) hiker. Yesterday I did a 10K run in the heat and ended my run at the school, sweaty and dishevelled. If anyone objected to that, then it's their issue, not mine. When I got home I showered and changed.
I really don't know why my views on shoes and clothes bother you. If you have medical problems with your feet I have every sympathy and can quite see why you buy shoes that work for you.
As for what you said to me in the past, it was deeply offensive and upsetting and the fact that you don't remember or can't think what it was is not a surprise to me. But since I do not wish to dwell on it, that is the end of it. I am well aware you don't like me but this is a forum for discussion not about making friends so it does not matter.
You are being silly referring to runners. Of course they and hikers etc will look sweaty. No-one - least of all me - has any issue with that. I am quite a keen walker myself tho' nothing on your scale and, having recently received good medical news affecting my legs, I am planning some longer walks near where I live.
But the visual environment around us affects all of us so it pains me to see horrible and badly maintained buildings, tatty front gardens - don't get me started on plastic grass - litter and people looking dirty and ill-dressed or, more accurately, unsuitably dressed for the circumstances or, and I used to see this on the tube, people (often women) doing their make up. Can't they get up 5 minutes earlier? The worst was seeing someone floss their teeth. On the tube. I ask you.
Visual beauty is a joy. We can all play our part in making public spaces attractive, including how we appear in them.
And yet Naples, which is wonderful, has no end of litter and badly maintained buildings...
I know and re buildings often in some of the richest streets. Mind you I have heard people sneering about the washing lines and I love those. I remember seeing eels in baskets too.
It does depend on which parts of Naples you are talking about. Much of the centre has been cleaned up. Many of the outer parts have problems with illegal waste dumping by the Camorra.
Still I learnt all about "fare bella figura" there.
BBC reporting on itself....BBC sent one email, got no reply, and attempted to make one phone call , which didn't connect.
The glee with which the BBC deals with any story about the BBC is always quite baffling. Until you consider that the BBC is not one massive megabrain but is made up of thousands of individuals, many of whom have built up massive resentments against other individuals or the institution as a whole.
Also it's quite an easy story for them to report on. No tedious trips to dull or far flung locations.
Sky News is all over it. If the BBC didn't give it big coverage everyone would be asking why not.
I thought Neil Wallis was pretty outrageous on Sky News. Claiming this was the BBC's equivalent of the Schofield scandal - conveniently forgetting that n that case Schofield admitted to behaving inappropriately - and also bringing up Jimmy Saville for good measure.
An allegation was made to the BBC by a third party. They made no attempt to follow up on their allegation. They then went to a newspaper. Surely there are crackpot allegations being made about BBC stars all the time. What are they supposed to do?
To be honest this is probably a timely reminder for the BBC to strengthen their complaints processes (possibly backed up by HR and in house legal).
Yes they must get a lot of bonkers allegations coming through to them all the time. I would suspect however that a single email and a call that doesn’t connect isn’t a particularly robust response to trying to get in touch with someone. A follow up email at the very least and a recorded delivery letter (as someone mentioned above) would be far better at demonstrating intent.
I should think that large organisations in the public eye will get lots of stuff coming that that can be construed as complaint. The BBC will have no vested interest in keeping complaints alive, as opposed to ensuring they are dealt with in a way which can't be accused of ignoring them. It may well be that most disappear of their own accord by the passage of time, or by the complexities of procedure. Most people are defeated by the issue of exactly specifying what is being complained about once the question is raised.
A single email from the BBC (or whoever) to an accredited address is in practice undeniable in terms of both the fact it has been sent, and also its contents. It will ask something in terms of follow up, and hope the matter dies a death. It often will. If it were me I would send exactly one email, asking for a precise reply and hope I don't get one. Occasionally it becomes a story for the Sun.
I still can't identify anything the BBC has done wrong here.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
If school fees were the only thing going up then not a problem however increases between 2003 to recently weren’t also competing with a cost of living squeeze.
People who were just managing fee increases because the cost of servicing their mortgages and other debts weren’t increasing now will have the increased school fees through added VAT as well as increased mortgage payments.
It’s a lot easier and quicker to whip your child out of private school and get them educated for free than to sell your house and downsize, even get a mortgage, so I think trying to map attitudes to increased school fees before now and after don’t work.
Use the template of my old school. Charge more than anyone else and give out plenty of scholarships. Particularly sports scholarships. Then you'll get them queuing up. If you make your school appear to be unique you'll fill it up whatever the cost As for those that don't get the pupils let them close down. You'll be doing the parents a favour. Close Eton and Harrow down and you'll be doing all of us a favour.
PS Time to choose a new DG for the BBC. Just NOT a TORY this time please. The man is useless and he's slowly destroying it. This should be Starmer's job number one
My school did that. I only found out fairly recently. I was in a conversation with ten friends from school - it turned out by far the majority of us were on scholarships. It had never really struck me before - but all the conspicuously rich kids were not really desperately bright.
David Cameron (ex-Eton, Oxford and Downing Street) lamented Eton turning its back on rich thickos to become just another academic hothouse.
Eton used to have a system called reading over. Each year 250 boys would assemble and their performances in exams read out to everyone. Starting with the worst performing. The worst performing boys were often called "General Total Failures" and if you happen to have any OE friends of a certain age they will remember this clearly.
The system was in place for many years and then, for some reason or another, was abolished when PB's favourite HRH joined the school.
Is General T-F still higher ranking than Major Fuckup?
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
US says ‘intends to move forward’ with transfer of F-16 jets to Turkey, hours after Erdogan relents on Sweden's Nato membership and holds meeting aimed at reheating EU ties https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1678675022997606400
Better inside the tent pissing out.
Contrast with how rewarding our own 'faithful retainer' approach has been over the decades.
We did get Polaris and Tridents out of it, and rumor has it that when they stiffed us over f-111s Wilson turned round and said "no" to US over Vietnam
and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
Now there's a gauntlet! Persuasion is indeed a very great novel. In terms of its psychological insight, it far transcends the genre and looks forward to George Elliot. It is tinged with bitterness and regret, and unlike Jane Austen's earlier novels, as you read it, there's by no means any certainty that you're heading for a neat and happy ending. I've always wondered what she would have produced if she'd lived long enough to write more novels.
Even so... the greatest of the six? Greater even than Pride & Prejudice, and Emma? No, one can't go that far.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
If school fees were the only thing going up then not a problem however increases between 2003 to recently weren’t also competing with a cost of living squeeze.
People who were just managing fee increases because the cost of servicing their mortgages and other debts weren’t increasing now will have the increased school fees through added VAT as well as increased mortgage payments.
It’s a lot easier and quicker to whip your child out of private school and get them educated for free than to sell your house and downsize, even get a mortgage, so I think trying to map attitudes to increased school fees before now and after don’t work.
Use the template of my old school. Charge more than anyone else and give out plenty of scholarships. Particularly sports scholarships. Then you'll get them queuing up. If you make your school appear to be unique you'll fill it up whatever the cost As for those that don't get the pupils let them close down. You'll be doing the parents a favour. Close Eton and Harrow down and you'll be doing all of us a favour.
PS Time to choose a new DG for the BBC. Just NOT a TORY this time please. The man is useless and he's slowly destroying it. This should be Starmer's job number one
My school did that. I only found out fairly recently. I was in a conversation with ten friends from school - it turned out by far the majority of us were on scholarships. It had never really struck me before - but all the conspicuously rich kids were not really desperately bright.
The headmaster of the school my youngest attends has just been promoted up to run a large part of the group of schools it is a part of. He succeeded in fund raising enough to create a self supporting endowment covering 20% of places as 100% bursaries.
His plan is to extend this across the other schools.
When I pointed out that if it took 7 years to raise sufficient funds to do 20%, then another 7 years of the same would get to 40%… he said, yes, that too.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
Child of the parents - "offspring" sounds silly, and they don't want to identify the sex. so not son or daughter.
Offspring is vaguer and includes grandchildren etc. Strange there isn't a better generic term for "son or daughter" than "child". I'm told the sex of the young person in this case has been mentioned a few times already in major media anyway.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
Child of the parents - "offspring" sounds silly, and they don't want to identify the sex. so not son or daughter.
Offspring is vaguer and includes grandchildren etc. Strange there isn't a better generic term for "son or daughter" than "child". I'm told the sex of the young person in this case has been mentioned a few times already in major media anyway.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
With their poor record of integrating people into wider British society I wouldn't recommend it.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Yes thank God the existence of slavery in North America had nothing to with the British.
It certainly had nothing to do with anyone born in Britain today, or do you believe in collective ethnic guilt?
I don't think guilt is a useful response at all but equally I think it would be absurd to pretend that North American slavery had nothing to do with us, or indeed to pretend that people alive now haven't benefited materially from its legacy.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
I imagine Victoria Derbyshire is having a tough meeting with management today after last nights multiple bollock dropping on Newsnight about this story.
Among other things, we are being told that being under 25 diminishes your legal responsibility for your actions, by the courts.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
I’m only a public school thicko but do I understand that you advocate the government stealing legally owned assets belonging to legally structured entities as a threat to make them pay business rates?
Surely you just, crazy idea, make it a law they have to pay business rates otherwise you have this issue where Britain doesn’t appear to be a very safe place to have any sort of charitable foundation as if you are doing something the government of the day doesn’t approve of for ideological reasons then they can blackmail you and you could lose your legally donated and generated assets.
Would this apply to a charity that provides abortions who charge a fee to those who can afford it but provides free abortions for those who can’t if we got a GOP type party in power?
US says ‘intends to move forward’ with transfer of F-16 jets to Turkey, hours after Erdogan relents on Sweden's Nato membership and holds meeting aimed at reheating EU ties https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1678675022997606400
Better inside the tent pissing out.
Contrast with how rewarding our own 'faithful retainer' approach has been over the decades.
We did get Polaris and Tridents out of it, and rumor has it that when they stiffed us over f-111s Wilson turned round and said "no" to US over Vietnam
Also access to all US nuclear warhead design - it is integrated to the point that Chuck Hansen serious suggested that most US designs are actually joint US/U.K. designs
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
I’m only a public school thicko but do I understand that you advocate the government stealing legally owned assets belonging to legally structured entities as a threat to make them pay business rates?
Surely you just, crazy idea, make it a law they have to pay business rates otherwise you have this issue where Britain doesn’t appear to be a very safe place to have any sort of charitable foundation as if you are doing something the government of the day doesn’t approve of for ideological reasons then they can blackmail you and you could lose your legally donated and generated assets.
Would this apply to a charity that provides abortions who charge a fee to those who can afford it but provides free abortions for those who can’t if we got a GOP type party in power?
Or you could argue, churches who charge fees for weddings. (Although the Church in Wales was of course partially disendowed on disestablishment.)
I think with those schools, the more pertinent question would be, are they actually charities or are they businesses? That's where it gets to be a grey area. What this would do is force clarity.
I think the problem with VAT is for all the claims to the contrary my view having worked in the private and state sectors is it would shut a large number of private schools, particularly in the Midlands and North, but not those that are hotbeds of wealth lefties love to hate. It might therefore actually entrench privilege and put more pressure on state schools while not raising any meaningful money.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
I imagine Victoria Derbyshire is having a tough meeting with management today after last nights multiple bollock dropping on Newsnight about this story.
Among other things, we are being told that being under 25 diminishes your legal responsibility for your actions, by the courts.
Sounds… childish to me.
There's a creeping infantilisation of young adults that's been going on for a while.
Wrong to call the slaves in the US "voters". They were taken account of in the three-fifths rule for purposes of the allocation of seats in the electoral college and the House, but (unsurprisingly) they weren't allowed to vote.
Up until about the 1970s part of the reason some white supremacists detested the idea of black children becoming literate was that "if you can read, you can vote".
Also a large proportion (a majority) of black women in the US in say the 1940s worked not in hospitality but as domestic servants, maids, "help".
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
I’m only a public school thicko but do I understand that you advocate the government stealing legally owned assets belonging to legally structured entities as a threat to make them pay business rates?
Surely you just, crazy idea, make it a law they have to pay business rates otherwise you have this issue where Britain doesn’t appear to be a very safe place to have any sort of charitable foundation as if you are doing something the government of the day doesn’t approve of for ideological reasons then they can blackmail you and you could lose your legally donated and generated assets.
Would this apply to a charity that provides abortions who charge a fee to those who can afford it but provides free abortions for those who can’t if we got a GOP type party in power?
Or you could argue, churches who charge fees for weddings. (Although the Church in Wales was of course partially disendowed on disestablishment.)
I think with those schools, the more pertinent question would be, are they actually charities or are they businesses? That's where it gets to be a grey area. What this would do is force clarity.
I think the problem with VAT is for all the claims to the contrary my view having worked in the private and state sectors is it would shut a large number of private schools, particularly in the Midlands and North, but not those that are hotbeds of wealth lefties love to hate. It might therefore actually entrench privilege and put more pressure on state schools while not raising any meaningful money.
Some folk think the C of E shouldn't charge, full stop.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Not just that- elite private schools are one of those strange goods whose attractiveness goes up as the price goes up. (Was it Stella Artois who used the slogan "reassuringly expensive"?)
So Eton etc have a castiron excuse to jack up their fees, which paradoxically makes them more popular, as well as generating an income stream for the rest of the education system.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
With their poor record of integrating people into wider British society I wouldn't recommend it.
Ah good point. I was floating outside the box there (looking to kill 2 Bs with the one S) but maybe needs work.
Seriously, though, we should do something about these places. They are where Class Privilege goes to tool up for the Fight.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
Child of the parents - "offspring" sounds silly, and they don't want to identify the sex. so not son or daughter.
Offspring is vaguer and includes grandchildren etc. Strange there isn't a better generic term for "son or daughter" than "child". I'm told the sex of the young person in this case has been mentioned a few times already in major media anyway.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
I’m only a public school thicko but do I understand that you advocate the government stealing legally owned assets belonging to legally structured entities as a threat to make them pay business rates?
Surely you just, crazy idea, make it a law they have to pay business rates otherwise you have this issue where Britain doesn’t appear to be a very safe place to have any sort of charitable foundation as if you are doing something the government of the day doesn’t approve of for ideological reasons then they can blackmail you and you could lose your legally donated and generated assets.
Would this apply to a charity that provides abortions who charge a fee to those who can afford it but provides free abortions for those who can’t if we got a GOP type party in power?
Or you could argue, churches who charge fees for weddings. (Although the Church in Wales was of course partially disendowed on disestablishment.)
I think with those schools, the more pertinent question would be, are they actually charities or are they businesses? That's where it gets to be a grey area. What this would do is force clarity.
I think the problem with VAT is for all the claims to the contrary my view having worked in the private and state sectors is it would shut a large number of private schools, particularly in the Midlands and North, but not those that are hotbeds of wealth lefties love to hate. It might therefore actually entrench privilege and put more pressure on state schools while not raising any meaningful money.
By all means make an argument that these schools must pay business rates or VAT (although if we rejoin the EU then VAT cannot be charged on provision of education if I remember correctly) but talk of disendowment, or “theft” is ridiculous. The only people who would benefit would be the likes of the extended Fiennes (the Twistleton Wykeham ones) family amongst others and their lawyers who would suggest that if the school no longer is allowed the assets then they belong to the descendants of the donor’s family.
You would also have the tasty issue (ssee the Guardian demanding BP stop sponsoring the Arts then whining that there is no money for the Arts) where these schools are riddled with ancient listed buildings which cost millions each year to upkeep - and this is where a lots of the endowment money goes btw - which would then, if these places have to close, need someone to pay for their upkeep, obviously not BP. Unless of course whilst we have this cultural revolution we just knock them down as a symbol of evil elitism?
Boris and Carrie Johnson have announced the birth of their third child together. Frank Alfred Odysseus Johnson was born last Wednesday.
That's kid number....counts on one hand...move to next hand...onto toes...lost count for Boris.
The nice thing about having a child is that it really convinces you that you are not the centre of the universe, and having someone else to care for forces you to adopt a more responsible attitude towards life more broadly, and to be a better person so that your child grows up with the right values. Maybe this Nth child will somehow have this effect on Boris Johnson.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
Child of the parents - "offspring" sounds silly, and they don't want to identify the sex. so not son or daughter.
Offspring is vaguer and includes grandchildren etc. Strange there isn't a better generic term for "son or daughter" than "child". I'm told the sex of the young person in this case has been mentioned a few times already in major media anyway.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
I’m only a public school thicko but do I understand that you advocate the government stealing legally owned assets belonging to legally structured entities as a threat to make them pay business rates?
Surely you just, crazy idea, make it a law they have to pay business rates otherwise you have this issue where Britain doesn’t appear to be a very safe place to have any sort of charitable foundation as if you are doing something the government of the day doesn’t approve of for ideological reasons then they can blackmail you and you could lose your legally donated and generated assets.
Would this apply to a charity that provides abortions who charge a fee to those who can afford it but provides free abortions for those who can’t if we got a GOP type party in power?
Why not go further and say they only sell the conditioning ("education") to the rich in order to be in a position to give it without charge to the poor, the same way Oxfam sells books and clothes to those who can afford them and then spends the proceeds on famine relief?
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
Child of the parents - "offspring" sounds silly, and they don't want to identify the sex. so not son or daughter.
Offspring is vaguer and includes grandchildren etc. Strange there isn't a better generic term for "son or daughter" than "child". I'm told the sex of the young person in this case has been mentioned a few times already in major media anyway.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
I’m only a public school thicko but do I understand that you advocate the government stealing legally owned assets belonging to legally structured entities as a threat to make them pay business rates?
Surely you just, crazy idea, make it a law they have to pay business rates otherwise you have this issue where Britain doesn’t appear to be a very safe place to have any sort of charitable foundation as if you are doing something the government of the day doesn’t approve of for ideological reasons then they can blackmail you and you could lose your legally donated and generated assets.
Would this apply to a charity that provides abortions who charge a fee to those who can afford it but provides free abortions for those who can’t if we got a GOP type party in power?
Or you could argue, churches who charge fees for weddings. (Although the Church in Wales was of course partially disendowed on disestablishment.)
I think with those schools, the more pertinent question would be, are they actually charities or are they businesses? That's where it gets to be a grey area. What this would do is force clarity.
I think the problem with VAT is for all the claims to the contrary my view having worked in the private and state sectors is it would shut a large number of private schools, particularly in the Midlands and North, but not those that are hotbeds of wealth lefties love to hate. It might therefore actually entrench privilege and put more pressure on state schools while not raising any meaningful money.
By all means make an argument that these schools must pay business rates or VAT (although if we rejoin the EU then VAT cannot be charged on provision of education if I remember correctly) but talk of disendowment, or “theft” is ridiculous. The only people who would benefit would be the likes of the extended Fiennes (the Twistleton Wykeham ones) family amongst others and their lawyers who would suggest that if the school no longer is allowed the assets then they belong to the descendants of the donor’s family.
You would also have the tasty issue (ssee the Guardian demanding BP stop sponsoring the Arts then whining that there is no money for the Arts) where these schools are riddled with ancient listed buildings which cost millions each year to upkeep - and this is where a lots of the endowment money goes btw - which would then, if these places have to close, need someone to pay for their upkeep, obviously not BP. Unless of course whilst we have this cultural revolution we just knock them down as a symbol of evil elitism?
Ummm - the endowments that go *up* in value every year are being spent on maintaining buildings? If so, there must be quite a backlog.
And again, with the Church in Wales it wasn't difficult. They just declared the assets belonged to the nation.
If you ring-fenced any money raised to support education I doubt very much whether anyone would be able to lodge a claim.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
I’m only a public school thicko but do I understand that you advocate the government stealing legally owned assets belonging to legally structured entities as a threat to make them pay business rates?
Surely you just, crazy idea, make it a law they have to pay business rates otherwise you have this issue where Britain doesn’t appear to be a very safe place to have any sort of charitable foundation as if you are doing something the government of the day doesn’t approve of for ideological reasons then they can blackmail you and you could lose your legally donated and generated assets.
Would this apply to a charity that provides abortions who charge a fee to those who can afford it but provides free abortions for those who can’t if we got a GOP type party in power?
"Stealing" is a strong word and denotes taking asset X from party Y who has a right to it. Who is Party Y here? The charity trustees, boards of governors, or wardens and fellows, or whatever name they go under? (It can't be the shareholders because there aren't any.) Not considered as private individuals or as representatives of a private caste, of course, oh no. Public servants, with a better understanding of what that means, even in their little fingers, than could ever be had by a hypothetical future government and the population of plebs who would dare in their plebbiness to elect such thieves? Talk about acting "entitled"! Incidentally I went to the same school you did.
Where has this phrase "20 year old child" come from? I've heard it a number of times now, including I think on Newsnight yesterday evening.
Child of the parents - "offspring" sounds silly, and they don't want to identify the sex. so not son or daughter.
Offspring is vaguer and includes grandchildren etc. Strange there isn't a better generic term for "son or daughter" than "child". I'm told the sex of the young person in this case has been mentioned a few times already in major media anyway.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
Requisition as accommodation for asylum seekers?
Well, if Johnson went there I suppose it was a sort of asylum.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Making some sense here. And I do like the suitably painful sound of 'disendow'. Brutal perhaps but hardly unprovoked imo.
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
[a chainsaw starts in the background...]
Yep. This time it really is Goodbye Mr Chips. Ouch.
Yes thank God the existence of slavery in North America had nothing to with the British.
It certainly had nothing to do with anyone born in Britain today, or do you believe in collective ethnic guilt?
“Nothing to do with” is an interesting phrase. I’m guessing you meant “wasn’t caused by anyone born in Britain today” and that is true. But does that literally mean it has nothing to do with us in the broader sense of those words? It is something that has impact on our lives today, it has shaped today’s world. There are those who are disadvantaged today because of it, those who are advantaged, and those who are affected in more complicated ways. I don’t see how you can understand modern British society without this important historical context.
Yes thank God the existence of slavery in North America had nothing to with the British.
It certainly had nothing to do with anyone born in Britain today, or do you believe in collective ethnic guilt?
I don't think guilt is a useful response at all but equally I think it would be absurd to pretend that North American slavery had nothing to do with us, or indeed to pretend that people alive now haven't benefited materially from its legacy.
My own view is that once a nation becomes independent, it becomes responsible for its own actions. The Founding Fathers could have chosen to repudiate slavery, but instead chose to endorse it.
Rather like countries that retain colonial anti-sodomy laws. They could repeal them if they wished to.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3h Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.
Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?
Short answer: yes.
Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.
If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
I’m only a public school thicko but do I understand that you advocate the government stealing legally owned assets belonging to legally structured entities as a threat to make them pay business rates?
Surely you just, crazy idea, make it a law they have to pay business rates otherwise you have this issue where Britain doesn’t appear to be a very safe place to have any sort of charitable foundation as if you are doing something the government of the day doesn’t approve of for ideological reasons then they can blackmail you and you could lose your legally donated and generated assets.
Would this apply to a charity that provides abortions who charge a fee to those who can afford it but provides free abortions for those who can’t if we got a GOP type party in power?
Or you could argue, churches who charge fees for weddings. (Although the Church in Wales was of course partially disendowed on disestablishment.)
I think with those schools, the more pertinent question would be, are they actually charities or are they businesses? That's where it gets to be a grey area. What this would do is force clarity.
I think the problem with VAT is for all the claims to the contrary my view having worked in the private and state sectors is it would shut a large number of private schools, particularly in the Midlands and North, but not those that are hotbeds of wealth lefties love to hate. It might therefore actually entrench privilege and put more pressure on state schools while not raising any meaningful money.
By all means make an argument that these schools must pay business rates or VAT (although if we rejoin the EU then VAT cannot be charged on provision of education if I remember correctly) but talk of disendowment, or “theft” is ridiculous. The only people who would benefit would be the likes of the extended Fiennes (the Twistleton Wykeham ones) family amongst others and their lawyers who would suggest that if the school no longer is allowed the assets then they belong to the descendants of the donor’s family.
You would also have the tasty issue (ssee the Guardian demanding BP stop sponsoring the Arts then whining that there is no money for the Arts) where these schools are riddled with ancient listed buildings which cost millions each year to upkeep - and this is where a lots of the endowment money goes btw - which would then, if these places have to close, need someone to pay for their upkeep, obviously not BP. Unless of course whilst we have this cultural revolution we just knock them down as a symbol of evil elitism?
Ummm - the endowments that go *up* in value every year are being spent on maintaining buildings? If so, there must be quite a backlog.
And again, with the Church in Wales it wasn't difficult. They just declared the assets belonged to the nation.
If you ring-fenced any money raised to support education I doubt very much whether anyone would be able to lodge a claim.
Winchester has 94 listed buildings. If you don’t know it then think of New College Oxford so quads, chapels etc etc for starters. These require constant care, repair, protection which cannot be done cheaply because, they are listed and have to have work done a certain way by a limited number of specialists.
There isn’t a point where you say “we’ve fixed all the buildings let’s leave them for 50 years, it’s a constant ongoing process.
So who pays for this in the new glorious egalitarian age? It’s a struggle as it is for charities trying to get funds to save old buildings.
Yes thank God the existence of slavery in North America had nothing to with the British.
It certainly had nothing to do with anyone born in Britain today, or do you believe in collective ethnic guilt?
I don't think guilt is a useful response at all but equally I think it would be absurd to pretend that North American slavery had nothing to do with us, or indeed to pretend that people alive now haven't benefited materially from its legacy.
My own view is that once a nation becomes independent, it becomes responsible for its own actions.
So if I come over to your house and steal all of your assets then let you go that's on you is it? We're both equal?
Brother-in-law started new job for a design company with 200 or so employees this week.
The company has a canteen where the lunches are free. But there is a catch.
If an employee wants the free lunch their one hour lunch break reduces to 30 minutes. If they don't want the lunch they get their hour. No pressure either way is applied by management.
No doubt I'm out of touch, but I've never heard of this before. Quite novel and brother-in-law says that most employees opt for the free lunch and reduced lunchbreak
Yes thank God the existence of slavery in North America had nothing to with the British.
It certainly had nothing to do with anyone born in Britain today, or do you believe in collective ethnic guilt?
I don't think guilt is a useful response at all but equally I think it would be absurd to pretend that North American slavery had nothing to do with us, or indeed to pretend that people alive now haven't benefited materially from its legacy.
My own view is that once a nation becomes independent, it becomes responsible for its own actions.
So if I come over to your house and steal all of your assets then let you go that's on you is it? We're both equal?
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/20/twitter-accuses-tories-of-misleading-public-in-factcheck-row
As for what you said to me in the past, it was deeply offensive and upsetting and the fact that you don't remember or can't think what it was is not a surprise to me. But since I do not wish to dwell on it, that is the end of it.
I am well aware you don't like me but this is a forum for discussion not about making friends so it does not matter.
You are being silly referring to runners. Of course they and hikers etc will look sweaty. No-one - least of all me - has any issue with that. I am quite a keen walker myself tho' nothing on your scale and, having recently received good medical news affecting my legs, I am planning some longer walks near where I live.
But the visual environment around us affects all of us so it pains me to see horrible and badly maintained buildings, tatty front gardens - don't get me started on plastic grass - litter and people looking dirty and ill-dressed or, more accurately, unsuitably dressed for the circumstances or, and I used to see this on the tube, people (often women) doing their make up. Can't they get up 5 minutes earlier? The worst was seeing someone floss their teeth. On the tube. I ask you.
Visual beauty is a joy. We can all play our part in making public spaces attractive, including how we appear in them.
I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.
I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.'
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/1618.html
"the BBC has found that at least a quarter of businesses in the sector in which the Claimant works have had employees investigated by the police for serious sexual offences, yet despite this the sector does not have any policies or procedures for employees who are accused of violence against women, nor any consistency of approach to allegations". (BBM).
In how many sectors does it make sense 1) to consider all the businesses as in some way equivalent and listable so that you can then proceed to say well at least a quarter of them are this or that, and then 2) to observe that there's no consistent policy across the sector, implying that there could and should be, and furthermore 3) in which there is a person who is described as "a nationally (and internationally) known name"?
That's not financial services, accountancy, banking. It's not drama, music, or retail. It's not construction or information technology. It's not manufacturing, road haulage, agriculture. It's not the law or medicine. It's not television or film production. It's not local government or care homes. It's not advertising or "influencing". It's not even estate agency.
There's only about one thing it could be.
The judge, Rowena Collins Rice, was actually secretary to the Leveson inquiry too.
https://www.youtube.com/c/ashleynealdrivingins/videos
Other channels are available. The London Dash Cam has fair analysis but very robust and nsfw language.
Yes they must get a lot of bonkers allegations coming through to them all the time. I would suspect however that a single email and a call that doesn’t connect isn’t a particularly robust response to trying to get in touch with someone. A follow up email at the very least and a recorded delivery letter (as someone mentioned above) would be far better at demonstrating intent.
Thirty quid to resole a pair in Chadsmoor. When I paid £155 for the shoes that’s a good deal.
Given that a new pair will be £150+ and won't be right for ages resoling them is a bargain...
Meanwhile under the Tories, real per pupil spending on state school pupils has fallen by 10%.
There isn't yet a nanotechnology available that can produce a violin comensurately small as I ponder the tragedy set to befall pupils in private schools under Labour's VAT plans.
https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1678675022997606400
Better inside the tent pissing out.
This is nowhere near as it difficult as it's been made out to be by the defence since 1945.
This detachment-from-things is hghly liberating, once you do it. Things are just THINGS. Humans are irreplaceable (for now), and maybe the odd animal you inexplicably love.
But stuff is mere stuff. You can replace it, if you are so minded
In the end I whittled down my list of irreplaceable objects to: 2 books (both unique, personal and NOT replaceable for different reasons), a couple of knives with weird memories attached, and some modest objects collected on my travels (all small, some allegedly valuable (if sold), some not, every one exceedingly unique to me)
That's it. As I say, they failed to fill a shoebox. Everything else I own: meh, whatever, nice to have around, I can buy 'em again
The system was in place for many years and then, for some reason or another, was abolished when PB's favourite HRH joined the school.
Well, that's not much help, is it? Please PM me with details, and if I think I've caused offence then I will wholeheartedly publicly apologise on here.
But to make it clear: when you say stupid or nasty things, expect people to argue with you, although hopefully not in kind. If you take that personally, then understand that the stuff you say can also be taken personally.
And I would argue that if you find the way people dress, or the quality of upkeep of the shoes they wear, to be hurtful enough to call them 'barbarians', or that if they don't match the image you want they should stay at home, then I would argue it's not their problem.
It's your problem.
I've seen women putting make-up on on the tube in the past. It was remarkable, as it was unusual, but I've no idea why they're doing it. Perhaps - as you suggest - it's because they're chaotic and disorganised. Or perhaps they're trying to hold down two jobs and take the kids to school, and there just are not enough hours in the day.
Freecycle is also very good for this. I like the idea of something that you've used being used by others rather than being thrown into a dump and the personal connection is nice too.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/11/decision-to-scrap-glasgow-night-bus-service-prompts-outcry
It does depend on which parts of Naples you are talking about. Much of the centre has been cleaned up. Many of the outer parts have problems with illegal waste dumping by the Camorra.
Still I learnt all about "fare bella figura" there.
A single email from the BBC (or whoever) to an accredited address is in practice undeniable in terms of both the fact it has been sent, and also its contents. It will ask something in terms of follow up, and hope the matter dies a death. It often will. If it were me I would send exactly one email, asking for a precise reply and hope I don't get one. Occasionally it becomes a story for the Sun.
I still can't identify anything the BBC has done wrong here.
and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
Now there's a gauntlet! Persuasion is indeed a very great novel. In terms of its psychological insight, it far transcends the genre and looks forward to George Elliot. It is tinged with bitterness and regret, and unlike Jane Austen's earlier novels, as you read it, there's by no means any certainty that you're heading for a neat and happy ending. I've always wondered what she would have produced if she'd lived long enough to write more novels.
Even so... the greatest of the six? Greater even than Pride & Prejudice, and Emma? No, one can't go that far.
His plan is to extend this across the other schools.
When I pointed out that if it took 7 years to raise sufficient funds to do 20%, then another 7 years of the same would get to 40%… he said, yes, that too.
Strange there isn't a better generic term for "son or daughter" than "child".
I'm told the sex of the young person in this case has been mentioned a few times already in major media anyway.
"America’s fierce guilt for slavery is understandable – we mustn’t import it
Sean Thomas"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/americas-fierce-guilt-for-slavery-is-understandable-we-mustnt-import-it/
That's kid number....counts on one hand...move to next hand...onto toes...lost count for Boris.
Incidentally, its endowment fund went up every single year in the past decade, including during Covid. It was worth £568 million in August last year, and that's with the school running at a headline loss.
https://www.etoncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/21-22-ETON-COLLEGE-CONSOLIDATED-Signed.pdf
Now, of course if you disendowed Eton etc that wouldn't be (like VAT) something you should use as income, unless you're Thatcher and Lawson. But it could very easily be used to rebuild a largeish chunk of our collapsing school structures, for example. Which, if a bunch of sane architects rather than the ones for BSF were involved, would not only dramatically improve the environment children are in, and make it safer, but also cut future running costs substantially.
Plus Eton would then undoubtedly charge higher fees to cover all its costs, and as a result the rich would be paying more.
Or alternatively, they become businesses, and account for their profits to the taxman. And pay up.
Meanwhile the smaller private schools - e.g. those that take a largeish number of SEND that the local authority can't find places for in specialist schools because they've all been shut - can keep doing what they do, which is not without disadvantages but would cause more problems than it would solve if it stopped.
Sounds… childish to me.
Surely you just, crazy idea, make it a law they have to pay business rates otherwise you have this issue where Britain doesn’t appear to be a very safe place to have any sort of charitable foundation as if you are doing something the government of the day doesn’t approve of for ideological reasons then they can blackmail you and you could lose your legally donated and generated assets.
Would this apply to a charity that provides abortions who charge a fee to those who can afford it but provides free abortions for those who can’t if we got a GOP type party in power?
I think with those schools, the more pertinent question would be, are they actually charities or are they businesses? That's where it gets to be a grey area. What this would do is force clarity.
I think the problem with VAT is for all the claims to the contrary my view having worked in the private and state sectors is it would shut a large number of private schools, particularly in the Midlands and North, but not those that are hotbeds of wealth lefties love to hate. It might therefore actually entrench privilege and put more pressure on state schools while not raising any meaningful money.
Up until about the 1970s part of the reason some white supremacists detested the idea of black children becoming literate was that "if you can read, you can vote".
Also a large proportion (a majority) of black women in the US in say the 1940s worked not in hospitality but as domestic servants, maids, "help".
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jul/08/church-of-england-weddings-scrap-high-fees-say-vicars
So Eton etc have a castiron excuse to jack up their fees, which paradoxically makes them more popular, as well as generating an income stream for the rest of the education system.
Win-win.
Seriously, though, we should do something about these places. They are where Class Privilege goes to tool up for the Fight.
You would also have the tasty issue (ssee the Guardian demanding BP stop sponsoring the Arts then whining that there is no money for the Arts) where these schools are riddled with ancient listed buildings which cost millions each year to upkeep - and this is where a lots of the endowment money goes btw - which would then, if these places have to close, need someone to pay for their upkeep, obviously not BP. Unless of course whilst we have this cultural revolution we just knock them down as a symbol of evil elitism?
Maybe this Nth child will somehow have this effect on Boris Johnson.
Charitable, my cr**hole!
"Look, elitist British public schools, you've been fouling up the place for years, and we've had enough. Time to disendow you. Please prepare yourselves accordingly."
And again, with the Church in Wales it wasn't difficult. They just declared the assets belonged to the nation.
If you ring-fenced any money raised to support education I doubt very much whether anyone would be able to lodge a claim.
As a senior official at OFSTED who foolishly lied to me in a recent letter has just found out the hard way.
I have a Welsh forename, a French-derived middle name and an English surname.
I am possibly the only person in the history of the known universe who has never had the slightest trouble using his name as his email address.
Rather like countries that retain colonial anti-sodomy laws. They could repeal them if they wished to.
https://blog.reedsy.com/character-name-generator/language/welsh/
There isn’t a point where you say “we’ve fixed all the buildings let’s leave them for 50 years, it’s a constant ongoing process.
So who pays for this in the new glorious egalitarian age? It’s a struggle as it is for charities trying to get funds to save old buildings.
The company has a canteen where the lunches are free. But there is a catch.
If an employee wants the free lunch their one hour lunch break reduces to 30 minutes. If they don't want the lunch they get their hour. No pressure either way is applied by management.
No doubt I'm out of touch, but I've never heard of this before. Quite novel and brother-in-law says that most employees opt for the free lunch and reduced lunchbreak