This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Badger11 Beckenham 21 Nov 19 2.40pm | |
---|---|
Alex Salmond is doing his bit for the SNP What did Oscar Wilde say, to face 1 allegation from one person is unfortunate to face 14 allegations from 10 different people well .....
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
chris123 hove actually 21 Nov 19 2.43pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
Alex Salmond is doing his bit for the SNP What did Oscar Wilde say, to face 1 allegation from one person is unfortunate to face 14 allegations from 10 different people well ..... ...Reading gaol.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 21 Nov 19 2.52pm | |
---|---|
Just spotted this from Labour's manifesto "reducing the voting age to 16, giving full voting rights to all UK residents, making sure everyone who is entitled to vote can do so by introducing a system of automatic voter registration, and abandoning plans to introduce voter ID which has been shown to harm democratic rights." There is a argument to be had over reducing the voting age personally I am against it. However it clearly favours Labour who will not now id check people who will be automatically registered. Now what is that word, Jeremy no Jerry got it Gerrymandering. I cannot see how an automatic voter registration can possibly work and be fair, its ripe for incompetence and voter fraud. For instance: Harry lives in Bromley and when he is 16 is added to the voter list. As Harry moves through life he changes his home address on multiple occasions, sometimes in Bromley maybe the other side of the country. Does anyway believe that the local councils are capable of keeping track of him and removing him or adding him when required. Good luck with that they'll be duplicate Harry registrations all over the place. Ironically if Labour introduced a national ID scheme and made voters present their id when voting then automatic enrolment would make sense.
Edited by Badger11 (21 Nov 2019 2.55pm)
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 21 Nov 19 2.53pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by chris123
...Reading gaol. LOL
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
W12 21 Nov 19 2.56pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Depends which system they're in. From experience private education is much broader and covered most of those topics, from slavery and abolition through to world wars, the fall of communism and so on. Granted that was 20 years ago but knowing plenty of people who went through the state system, it's nowhere near as expansive, in pretty much all areas. Both my kids are in private education at different schools and I'm having to intervene directly with them on a clearly left wing bias curriculum e.g. they will do a whole term on "empire and slavery" but barely cover the Magna Carter or the Bill of Rights. The whole system is rotten to the core.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cpfc_chap koh samui 21 Nov 19 4.36pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
From that poll the Brexit party is rapidly becoming an irrelevance. I think people will be surprised how many Labour leave constituencies they will win!
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 21 Nov 19 4.43pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by W12
Both my kids are in private education at different schools and I'm having to intervene directly with them on a clearly left wing bias curriculum e.g. they will do a whole term on "empire and slavery" but barely cover the Magna Carter or the Bill of Rights. The whole system is rotten to the core. I don't expect you to agree but for once Labour is correct about removing charitable status from private schools. It's a tax break for the better off and whilst I think private education is great it is only for those lucky to afford it. Charitable status should only be allowed if any person regardless of income could attend, not sure how that would work. Abolishing private schools is ridiculous.
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 21 Nov 19 4.54pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by W12
Both my kids are in private education at different schools and I'm having to intervene directly with them on a clearly left wing bias curriculum e.g. they will do a whole term on "empire and slavery" but barely cover the Magna Carter or the Bill of Rights. The whole system is rotten to the core. Education is riddled with left wing attitudes in pretty much every subject now. A few years back you could point at STEM and console yourself that it wasn't in the hard sciences.....but that has been changing as well. Peterson says....take your kids out. He has a serious point. However, as always it depends upon what your child(ren) requires.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 21 Nov 19 5.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
I don't expect you to agree but for once Labour is correct about removing charitable status from private schools. It's a tax break for the better off and whilst I think private education is great it is only for those lucky to afford it. Charitable status should only be allowed if any person regardless of income could attend, not sure how that would work. Abolishing private schools is ridiculous. I see sense in private schools for the seriously high IQ...130 and above for example. Outside of that it's always been hard to justify state help in private schools for those with enough to afford it....private schools without help is a possibility. I totally understand why hard working parents would wish to advantage their children. We see politicians from all party tribes doing it. It's not just about the education and better behaviour it's about the networking. Then again, the system as it is doesn't help the meritocratic system as money rather than sheer ability plays its role That said, any changes to private provision can only be done pretty slowly. The state system struggles to cope with the ridiculous population increases as it is. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2019 5.09pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 21 Nov 19 5.30pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I see sense in private schools for the seriously high IQ...130 and above for example. Outside of that it's always been hard to justify state help in private schools for those with enough to afford it....private schools without help is a possibility. I totally understand why hard working parents would wish to advantage their children. We see politicians from all party tribes doing it. It's not just about the education and better behaviour it's about the networking. Then again, the system as it is doesn't help the meritocratic system as money rather than sheer ability plays its role That said, any changes to private provision can only be done pretty slowly. The state system struggles to cope with the ridiculous population increases as it is. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2019 5.09pm) Agreed I don't want to break up private education and it should not be overnight as the schools will have to adjust to the loss of earnings. I would also make it part of an overall review of the charity sector. There are now many organisation that in my humble opinion don't deserve it. Charities that spend a large percentage of income on themselves rather than on the good cause. Organisations that are actually campaign groups / protest groups using the fig leaf of a charity. It sounds a lot more benign if the MSM report that a Charity commissioned report states such and such is terrible as opposed to Protest group demands change. I am not saying any of these group have done anything wrong its the rules that need tightening up. In America apparently it is even worse, all sorts of rich people setup up charities which are nothing more than tax shelters. Edited by Badger11 (21 Nov 2019 5.31pm)
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 21 Nov 19 5.46pm | |
---|---|
Labour pledge to abolish Universal Credit, why? It's cost a fortune to roll out and the principle of simplifying the benefits system is one even critics would agree with. However Labour would rather spend billions re-inventing the wheel. I don't believe it is so broke that it cannot be fixed. The main issues the media normally refer to are - It's not enough to live on. Any replacement system will take years to roll out and to what end just because Labour don't like UC. It's why I hate politicians if UC was a Labour idea they would fix it but when the Tories got in they would replace it. We must waste so much money in this country undoing what the other guys did.
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cryrst The garden of England 21 Nov 19 5.56pm | |
---|---|
Universal credit replaced 13 different benefits.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.