'abortion Like Holocaust'
- Thread starter jejquade
- Start date
simmo
Senior Jockey
What you originally said was "I would say that Marxism and Socialism are the religions of those who wish to prevent the evolutionary revolution from continuing".
I ask myself how can this be so and come to the conclusion that you believe that nationalisation and "tosspot group schools" stop the human race from continuing along the line of evolution into beings which are superior to those which went before.
It is my belief that this is not the case.
I ask myself how can this be so and come to the conclusion that you believe that nationalisation and "tosspot group schools" stop the human race from continuing along the line of evolution into beings which are superior to those which went before.
It is my belief that this is not the case.
Yes that is pretty much what I believe.
I think that what we now need is not 'isms' but an acceptance of individual responsibility for our own lives and the development of our children.
Passing these responsibilities onto the state has blatantly obviously been a failure.
I think that what we now need is not 'isms' but an acceptance of individual responsibility for our own lives and the development of our children.
Passing these responsibilities onto the state has blatantly obviously been a failure.
BrianH
At the Start
So would you abandon the National Health Service and state education (which, incidentally, I don't see to be socialist institutions)?
simmo
Senior Jockey
Surely it would as easy to abandon the NHS as it would be to abandon state education. What would we do with those who were unable to afford privately run education? At present, according to Glasgow City Council, I pay £80 a month towards the education of others. I have no requirement for, nor envisage any scenario in the future where I would require to make that payment for my family. So a person whose parents are unable (that's unable, not unwilling) to make a contribution to this fund get my £80. Good luck to them I say. Give me my money back and get back on the slag heap, taking your scumbag children with you, you say?
That isn't an issue.
The issue is whether state education is effective and it clearly isn't effective enough at the present time. It has had long enough to work but it still isn't working and it should go.
Obviously some way would have to be found to pay for it but I don't see it as a problem as we have to pay for it now anyway.
Let the state do what it does best, which is not much at all.
The issue is whether state education is effective and it clearly isn't effective enough at the present time. It has had long enough to work but it still isn't working and it should go.
Obviously some way would have to be found to pay for it but I don't see it as a problem as we have to pay for it now anyway.
Let the state do what it does best, which is not much at all.
A
Ardross
Guest
terry - is the country better educated now than it was in 1870 ?
I am a product of state education and I have done well enough thank you
Private education should go - if the rich had to have their children educated in state schools do you think many of them would be in the condition they are .
In fact , education results continue to improve . The real problem with children in this country is parent failure caused by a whole generation brought up on greed and selfishness in the 1980s
I am a product of state education and I have done well enough thank you
Private education should go - if the rich had to have their children educated in state schools do you think many of them would be in the condition they are .
In fact , education results continue to improve . The real problem with children in this country is parent failure caused by a whole generation brought up on greed and selfishness in the 1980s
BrianH
At the Start
So, if it's not working properly, scrap it?
Should JP close down Jackdaw's Castle then?
Or what should the government do about the private rail networks?
Should JP close down Jackdaw's Castle then?
Or what should the government do about the private rail networks?
Ardross, your analysis is laughable.
The 1980's still the root of all evil? :lol: :lol:
Why the 1870's? What right does anyone have to close private schools? It is nobody else's business if someone chooses to spend their money on private education. Thank God that they do as otherwise we'd be a bankrupt nation.
To suggest that the schools would improve if private schools were closed is typically condescending.
The fact is Ardross, you have no respect for the so called working class. You don't think that they can look after themselves so nurse, who knows best, must look after them. Only nurse can save the state schools but only if the private schools are closed.
If the private schools were closed then who would play nursie? Nobody.
We'd all need a socialist wonderland to bail us out, but unfortunately nobody would be left to pay for it.
The 1980's still the root of all evil? :lol: :lol:
Why the 1870's? What right does anyone have to close private schools? It is nobody else's business if someone chooses to spend their money on private education. Thank God that they do as otherwise we'd be a bankrupt nation.
To suggest that the schools would improve if private schools were closed is typically condescending.
The fact is Ardross, you have no respect for the so called working class. You don't think that they can look after themselves so nurse, who knows best, must look after them. Only nurse can save the state schools but only if the private schools are closed.
If the private schools were closed then who would play nursie? Nobody.
We'd all need a socialist wonderland to bail us out, but unfortunately nobody would be left to pay for it.
A
Ardross
Guest
I was trying to illustrate how daft your proposal to abolish state education is . 1870 was the introduction of compulsory education in this country .
The companies that have been brought in to run state schools have hardly been an overwhelming success .
Terry don't make me laugh with your concern for the working classes - how could they afford your private school system ?
Frankly, private schools are grossly inequitable and should be scrapped . The release of massive investment into the state system would lead to massive change and improvement and it would do a great deal to destroy the continuing pernicious influence of the class system in this country .
A good start would have been proper amendments to the public benefit test for charitable status but it looks like that has been badly watered down .
The companies that have been brought in to run state schools have hardly been an overwhelming success .
Terry don't make me laugh with your concern for the working classes - how could they afford your private school system ?
Frankly, private schools are grossly inequitable and should be scrapped . The release of massive investment into the state system would lead to massive change and improvement and it would do a great deal to destroy the continuing pernicious influence of the class system in this country .
A good start would have been proper amendments to the public benefit test for charitable status but it looks like that has been badly watered down .
Frankly I am amazed that parents send their children to poor state schools.
It is indicative of how far the state has taken over our lives that we put up with this kind of crap.
Children are the repsonsibility of their parents. Not the government. Not the schools. Nobody but their parents. The parents are responsible for the schools that they send them to. If the children are not educated properly then htey should be taken away from their parents and put in the charge of people who will bring them up to be decent citizens.
Of course, this ill never happen, but if it did, it would certainly focus minds.
Frankly, it is no surprise at all that young women decide to have abortions. What chance do the kids have under this appalling socialist system?
It is indicative of how far the state has taken over our lives that we put up with this kind of crap.
Children are the repsonsibility of their parents. Not the government. Not the schools. Nobody but their parents. The parents are responsible for the schools that they send them to. If the children are not educated properly then htey should be taken away from their parents and put in the charge of people who will bring them up to be decent citizens.
Of course, this ill never happen, but if it did, it would certainly focus minds.
Frankly, it is no surprise at all that young women decide to have abortions. What chance do the kids have under this appalling socialist system?
Ardross you are waffling and wriggling out of this.
You said that the 'working class' needed the wealthier parents to send their kids to the same schools so that the wealthier parents would sort the schools out.
I find this an appalling assessment of 'working class' people.
You are probably correct in fact, but only because the crap education system has created such a situation.
You said that the 'working class' needed the wealthier parents to send their kids to the same schools so that the wealthier parents would sort the schools out.
I find this an appalling assessment of 'working class' people.
You are probably correct in fact, but only because the crap education system has created such a situation.
I have some sympathy with your views on thsi matter, Ardross, although it's hard to argue against the principle of people being able to spend their money how they like - why is it ok to spend money on booze and ciggies, but not on education?
But anyway, your idea could work if 2 things were to happen:
1) There were no exceptions allowed - I have a fear that the very rich, religious fanatics, and, of course, Members of Parliament would find ways round it. Maybe, lots of British private schools would get set up in mainland Europe, and I'm sure those voicing "religious" or "security" requirements would be first in line.
2) You'd have to have some sort of grammar school system in place, because selection by postcode would be even more important (and divisive) than it is now. If you didn't, there really would be virtually no way up the ladder for "working class" children from deprived areas.
But anyway, your idea could work if 2 things were to happen:
1) There were no exceptions allowed - I have a fear that the very rich, religious fanatics, and, of course, Members of Parliament would find ways round it. Maybe, lots of British private schools would get set up in mainland Europe, and I'm sure those voicing "religious" or "security" requirements would be first in line.
2) You'd have to have some sort of grammar school system in place, because selection by postcode would be even more important (and divisive) than it is now. If you didn't, there really would be virtually no way up the ladder for "working class" children from deprived areas.
Brian I don't understand your point.
I am not proposing that education be abolished. I just don't think that what we have now is working or will ever work. If the state divests itself of running the schools then it can make the parents responsible for their children. In the long term I don't think that anything else will work. There's no discipline at home and none at school and surely there's no other way of remedying that?
I don't see what Jackdaws has to do with it.
I am not proposing that education be abolished. I just don't think that what we have now is working or will ever work. If the state divests itself of running the schools then it can make the parents responsible for their children. In the long term I don't think that anything else will work. There's no discipline at home and none at school and surely there's no other way of remedying that?
I don't see what Jackdaws has to do with it.
BrianH
At the Start
My point is a simple one. If the state educational system is falling down - and some of it patently is, while other parts are thriving - surely the solution is to fix it, not to scrap it. The jocular analogy with Jackdaw's may have been strained, I was saying that as Jonjo has been short of winners, for whatever reason, under your scheme JP would have to close the yard down.
How do you define 'proper' and just who decides falls short of it?
Isn't your proposal that other people bring up the children of what you consider to be failing parents state education by another route? Are these adoptive parents meant to volunteer? Or are you suggesting putting the kids in some sort of establishment paid for by the state and managed by state-paid staff?
And how do you define a 'decent' citizen?
Given that girls as young as 14 are choosing to remain pregnant to term and to bring their babies into the world (I'd like to know the stats on under-age births, as well as the abortions), surely it's time that real, real, REAL education about sexual reproduction, pregnancy, birthing, and childcare started seriously young? Look, I'm 60, but when I was around 17 I can honestly say that probably 40% of my mixed-sex school had 'done it'. Nowadays that's probably more like 70%, making allowances for the devoutly religious, who won't have been allowed to.
Terry is, of course, entirely right that that the upbringing of children is their parents' - or parent's - responsibility. But there are so many poorly-functioning families, and single parents, many of whom are woefully ignorant of parenting, that thousands of young children now have a very poor chance of schooling well. When homes have tvs blaring into the small hours, video games are provided but no books, there's no tradition of time together, learning to read with Mummy or Daddy, and the main exercise is to be hauled, howling, round yet another shopping mall, no wonder kids grow up with dreadful social and literacy skills.
To improve schools, one needs to improve parents' skills at providing an environment conducive to SUPPORTING the schooling effort, not working counter to it through laziness and 'not my jobsworth' attitudes. I remain sadly convinced by what I see in the high street that many children are treated like annoying interruptions to endless hours of shopping, tv, texting, having rows and fights, and binging on a Friday night. No wonder they want to bash teecher, who's trying to impose some form of order on wilfully chaotic and disordered lives.
Terry is, of course, entirely right that that the upbringing of children is their parents' - or parent's - responsibility. But there are so many poorly-functioning families, and single parents, many of whom are woefully ignorant of parenting, that thousands of young children now have a very poor chance of schooling well. When homes have tvs blaring into the small hours, video games are provided but no books, there's no tradition of time together, learning to read with Mummy or Daddy, and the main exercise is to be hauled, howling, round yet another shopping mall, no wonder kids grow up with dreadful social and literacy skills.
To improve schools, one needs to improve parents' skills at providing an environment conducive to SUPPORTING the schooling effort, not working counter to it through laziness and 'not my jobsworth' attitudes. I remain sadly convinced by what I see in the high street that many children are treated like annoying interruptions to endless hours of shopping, tv, texting, having rows and fights, and binging on a Friday night. No wonder they want to bash teecher, who's trying to impose some form of order on wilfully chaotic and disordered lives.
Maurice, I have no idea how the children would be looked after. The idea is that you make people think twice about having kids if they have no intention of bringing them up properly. If you ended up with millions of kids in care then clearly it won't have worked as an overall scheme.
I can't get my brain round some of the views put up here. Surely when they abolished grammar schools the idea was that the parents of the kids who would have gone to grammar school would make the comprehensive system work. It quite clearly hasn't worked. My two eldest children go to grammar school and whilst this is far from perfect compared to the quality of private education they have so far achieved a lot more than comprehensive kids that were doing better than they were at primary school. And believe me my own kids have underachieved so god knows what the parents of the other kids must think.
It is all rotten. The syllabus is boring. The kids are bored. The teachers are stressed. The parents are resigned. And I'm talking grammar schools here. The normal state schools are worse.
I mean, how much worse does it have to be?
I can't get my brain round some of the views put up here. Surely when they abolished grammar schools the idea was that the parents of the kids who would have gone to grammar school would make the comprehensive system work. It quite clearly hasn't worked. My two eldest children go to grammar school and whilst this is far from perfect compared to the quality of private education they have so far achieved a lot more than comprehensive kids that were doing better than they were at primary school. And believe me my own kids have underachieved so god knows what the parents of the other kids must think.
It is all rotten. The syllabus is boring. The kids are bored. The teachers are stressed. The parents are resigned. And I'm talking grammar schools here. The normal state schools are worse.
I mean, how much worse does it have to be?
Colin Phillips
At the Start
........and that's just the girls.
Colin
Colin
I really do get the impression things must be far worse in England than up here.
I went to a High School/Senior Secondary, probably the equivalent of a grammar school, and I can tell you the syllabus was rotten, the kids were bored, the teachers were bored, boring and stressed, and we misbehaved. In 25 years' teaching I have not witnessed incidents like some I witnessed in the Senior Secondary then.
I was in a top set and people in my class threw darts at the teacher when his back was turned, etc., etc. Other 'lower' sets' behaviour was much worse. The worst I've had was an eraser hitting the board when I was writing on it and the very occasional attempt at challenging behaviour, which I actually find quite easy to deal with.
The comprehensive system brought a vast majority of pupils on and helped bright kids understand the challenges facing less able learners. My street mates in my teens, who went to the local junior secondary, were a lot less literate - and some of their horror stories about how they treated teachers would land them in jail these days - than some of the least able in our system and numbers entering university are vastly greater than they were forty years ago.
It is easy to say the system isn't working, and for some it clearly isn't, but for a substantial majority it works a helluva lot better than the old system.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking constantly to improve, and we, as a profession, most certainly are.
One big difference - at the risk of introducing more controversy - is that in Scotland the teaching profession (Secondary) is almost 100% university graduates. I once had a student from an English college who was allowed (in England) to teach French as far as the end of 3rd Year because she had GCSE in the subject (one year ahead). She hadn't gone to university. If that was going on widely in England then it is hardly surprising the system has struggled.