Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

So how relevant is the issue of Public schools in the UK to the issue of Brexit, other than JC's manifesto to close them down.
Imo the only relevance is that Brexit for the elitists, means getting rid of EU's restrictions in subsidizing Private firms.
And if it were only that, then no big deal. The supposed national independence and freedom they will get out of the EU, in reality is freedom of the elitists to suppress the masses with no restriction. When the masses in the UK ever realize that, they'd have their jaws fall.

NB. Please forgive me, I sometimes forget that I want the UK to get out the EU.

[Lordo]

So how relevant is the issue of Public schools in the UK to the issue of Brexit, other than JC's manifesto to close them down.
Imo the only relevance is that Brexit for the elitists, means getting rid of EU's restrictions in subsidizing Private firms.
And if it were only that, then no big deal. The supposed national independence and freedom they will get out of the EU, in reality is freedom of the elitists to suppress the masses with no restriction. When the masses in the UK ever realize that, they'd have their jaws fall.

NB. Please forgive me, I sometimes forget that I want the UK to get out the EU.

manifesto is not out yet, there is no way of knowing what will be in it. at least they will be removing their charitable status, tax them, make them charge vat and remove the universities' practice of allocation very high proportion of the places to them.

just because a resolution was passed in the conference, it does not mean that it will make it into the manifesto in its entirity.

[Lordo]

what do you know, it seems the unlawful virus has been passed onto the police. now they are behaving unlawfully and will be liable to be charged for falsly imprisoning protestors.

when will this madness end. it seems now the police are making it as they go along.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50316561

[Londonrake]

So how relevant is the issue of Public schools in the UK to the issue of Brexit, other than JC's manifesto to close them down.
Imo the only relevance is that Brexit for the elitists, means getting rid of EU's restrictions in subsidizing Private firms.
And if it were only that, then no big deal. The supposed national independence and freedom they will get out of the EU, in reality is freedom of the elitists to suppress the masses with no restriction. When the masses in the UK ever realize that, they'd have their jaws fall.

NB. Please forgive me, I sometimes forget that I want the UK to get out the EU.

manifesto is not out yet, there is no way of knowing what will be in it. at least they will be removing their charitable status, tax them, make them charge vat and remove the universities' practice of allocation very high proportion of the places to them.

just because a resolution was passed in the conference, it does not mean that it will make it into the manifesto in its entirity.

I can tell you what will be in the Labour manifesto:

"We promise to honour the 2016 referendum result. The UK will be leaving the Federation, including the Single Market and Customs Union. Freedom of movement will come to an end. There will be no second referendum. It was a once in a lifetime event. Trust us."

I think if you're worried about suppression, you're looking in the wrong direction. Although I get the impression you are well qualified and would be overjoyed to be selected for duty as a Gulag guard.

University places should be allocated to the demonstrably best qualified, not on a gender/ethnic/social background basis. Although, thanks to Blair, it doesn't tend to be a problem nowadays. 50% of 18 - 24 year olds being in University education. Of some sort or another. Which makes you wonder why we keep hearing about how important it is to keep the UK wide open, in order to fill "skills shortages". "No tuition fees (introduced by Labour) and we will pay all of your accumulated educational debts" being one of Labour's usual election pitches. Money's no object. We will just take over the presses and print it, with absolutely no effect on Sterling or inflation. Simple.

Education, education, education.

[erolz66]

So Erolz let those rich to super rich have those "prestigious schools" in the UK, thinking they can buy better education and better future.
There is a very fine line separating normal education to oppressive and destructive education -I am sure you know that better than anyone else. Let them take the road of their own self destruction.

For me there are two separate things here.

1. The charity status these schools enjoy. I support the removal of this charity status from such schools because I believe such to be fundamental unfair. To raise taxes from all of society, meaning including the poorest in society and then use part of those taxes subsdising the provision of something that the poorest can and will never benefit from is just plain wrong in my book. There is also the issue of 'need' here. Spending tax payer money to help a school like my own one improve it's facilities, when it already has facilities that by any comparative standard are better than 98 % of all schools, is too me just a bad allocations of funds. My school just does not need such help as much as the million other things that money could be spent on are needed.

2. Such schools loosing their private fee paying status entirely and instead being integrated in to the state schools system. I support this not because of reasons of inequity or unfairness. I recognise such issues but do not personally consider those alone are sufficient justification to warrant the bringing of such schools in to the state school system. I support bringing them in to the state school system because I believe that in their current form they are statistically more likely to damage children than if they were within the state school system and more likely to do so to a degree that to me is not an acceptable level of risk. It is basically a child protection issue for me. Doing such would deprive people of some 'freedom of choice' but I think the protection of children from unacceptable levels of risk trumps this.

[Lordo]

So how relevant is the issue of Public schools in the UK to the issue of Brexit, other than JC's manifesto to close them down.
Imo the only relevance is that Brexit for the elitists, means getting rid of EU's restrictions in subsidizing Private firms.
And if it were only that, then no big deal. The supposed national independence and freedom they will get out of the EU, in reality is freedom of the elitists to suppress the masses with no restriction. When the masses in the UK ever realize that, they'd have their jaws fall.

NB. Please forgive me, I sometimes forget that I want the UK to get out the EU.

manifesto is not out yet, there is no way of knowing what will be in it. at least they will be removing their charitable status, tax them, make them charge vat and remove the universities' practice of allocation very high proportion of the places to them.

just because a resolution was passed in the conference, it does not mean that it will make it into the manifesto in its entirity.

I can tell you what will be in the Labour manifesto:

"We promise to honour the 2016 referendum result. The UK will be leaving the Federation, including the Single Market and Customs Union. Freedom of movement will come to an end. There will be no second referendum. It was a once in a lifetime event. Trust us."

I think if you're worried about suppression, you're looking in the wrong direction. Although I get the impression you are well qualified and would be overjoyed to be selected for duty as a Gulag guard.

University places should be allocated to the demonstrably best qualified, not on a gender/ethnic/social background basis. Although, thanks to Blair, it doesn't tend to be a problem nowadays. 50% of 18 - 24 year olds being in University education. Of some sort or another. Which makes you wonder why we keep hearing about how important it is to keep the UK wide open, in order to fill "skills shortages". "No tuition fees (introduced by Labour) and we will pay all of your accumulated educational debts" being one of Labour's usual election pitches. Money's no object. We will just take over the presses and print it, with absolutely no effect on Sterling or inflation. Simple.

Education, education, education.

the best cypriot prase that suits you is en o noussou dje ksigollisen

NEGOTIATING BREXIT
Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.

We will end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.

A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. EU nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips.

It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have the 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU.

A Conservative Brexit will weaken workers’ rights, deregulate the economy, slash corporate taxes, sideline Parliament and democratic accountability, and cut Britain off from our closest allies and most important trading partners.

Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a Ȇcliff-edge’ for the 8. economy.The issues that affect our continent now will continue to do so in the future – and Labour will continue to work constructively with the EU and other European nations on issues such as climate change, refugee crises and counter-terrorism. :e will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners.

this was in the 2017. 19 aint out yet

[Londonrake]

NEGOTIATING BREXIT
Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.

We will end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.

A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. EU nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips.

It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have the 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU.

A Conservative Brexit will weaken workers’ rights, deregulate the economy, slash corporate taxes, sideline Parliament and democratic accountability, and cut Britain off from our closest allies and most important trading partners.

Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a Ȇcliff-edge’ for the 8. economy.The issues that affect our continent now will continue to do so in the future – and Labour will continue to work constructively with the EU and other European nations on issues such as climate change, refugee crises and counter-terrorism. :e will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners.

this was in the 2017. 19 aint out yet

Thanks. No need to read past the first sentence. "Labour accepts the referendum result" A lot of people in the 148 Labour constituencies that voted to leave will have trusted them in 2017 on that basis. It was a lie and hopefully the party will get paid back for it in spades.

Current policy seems to depend on who you talk to. Corbyn/McDonnell/Starmer/Thornberry. Basically it seems to boil down to: if you're up north - we're leaving - if you're down south - we're staying. Trust us (again). If they get elected they're apparently going to renegotiate a better deal with the EU, then put it to another referendum, with an option to remain. (You can just imagine what the EU's "deal" would be, given those two choices. ). Then, most of the Labour Cabinet are going to campaign against their own party's deal - with the "Leader" remaining neutral on the matter. It all makes perfect sense. Actually - you couldn't make it up!

The best Anglo Saxon phrase that suits you is one I'm too polite to post.

[cyprusgrump]

So Erolz let those rich to super rich have those "prestigious schools" in the UK, thinking they can buy better education and better future.
There is a very fine line separating normal education to oppressive and destructive education -I am sure you know that better than anyone else. Let them take the road of their own self destruction.

For me there are two separate things here.

1. The charity status these schools enjoy. I support the removal of this charity status from such schools because I believe such to be fundamental unfair. To raise taxes from all of society, meaning including the poorest in society and then use part of those taxes subsdising the provision of something that the poorest can and will never benefit from is just plain wrong in my book. There is also the issue of 'need' here. Spending tax payer money to help a school like my own one improve it's facilities, when it already has facilities that by any comparative standard are better than 98 % of all schools, is too me just a bad allocations of funds. My school just does not need such help as much as the million other things that money could be spent on are needed.

2. Such schools loosing their private fee paying status entirely and instead being integrated in to the state schools system. I support this not because of reasons of inequity or unfairness. I recognise such issues but do not personally consider those alone are sufficient justification to warrant the bringing of such schools in to the state school system. I support bringing them in to the state school system because I believe that in their current form they are statistically more likely to damage children than if they were within the state school system and more likely to do so to a degree that to me is not an acceptable level of risk. It is basically a child protection issue for me. Doing such would deprive people of some 'freedom of choice' but I think the protection of children from unacceptable levels of risk trumps this.

You do keep posting the same old bollox post after post after post in the hope that some will eventually believe you...

There is no evidence (apart from your own personal anecdata that private education damages children - quite the opposite actually...

And there is certainly no data that privately educated children would be better off in the state system...

As I suggested earlier, why not campaign for the state schools to improve their standards to the point at which the demand for private education from parents like myself disappears...?

No, you'd prefer that education was dumbed-down to the same level for all...

[Pyrpolizer]

So Erolz let those rich to super rich have those "prestigious schools" in the UK, thinking they can buy better education and better future.
There is a very fine line separating normal education to oppressive and destructive education -I am sure you know that better than anyone else. Let them take the road of their own self destruction.

For me there are two separate things here.

1. The charity status these schools enjoy. I support the removal of this charity status from such schools because I believe such to be fundamental unfair. To raise taxes from all of society, meaning including the poorest in society and then use part of those taxes subsdising the provision of something that the poorest can and will never benefit from is just plain wrong in my book. There is also the issue of 'need' here. Spending tax payer money to help a school like my own one improve it's facilities, when it already has facilities that by any comparative standard are better than 98 % of all schools, is too me just a bad allocations of funds. My school just does not need such help as much as the million other things that money could be spent on are needed.

2. Such schools loosing their private fee paying status entirely and instead being integrated in to the state schools system. I support this not because of reasons of inequity or unfairness. I recognize such issues but do not personally consider those alone are sufficient justification to warrant the bringing of such schools in to the state school system. I support bringing them in to the state school system because I believe that in their current form they are statistically more likely to damage children than if they were within the state school system and more likely to do so to a degree that to me is not an acceptable level of risk. It is basically a child protection issue for me. Doing such would deprive people of some 'freedom of choice' but I think the protection of children from unacceptable levels of risk trumps this.

1.Totally agree.
2. I agree to that too on the condition that the "unacceptable level of risk" is proven. Question is how are you going to prove that?

[Pyrpolizer]

Thanks. No need to read past the first sentence. "Labour accepts the referendum result" A lot of people in the 148 Labour constituencies that voted to leave will have trusted them in 2017 on that basis. It was a lie and hopefully the party will get paid back for it in spades.

Current policy seems to depend on who you talk to. Corbyn/McDonnell/Starmer/Thornberry. Basically it seems to boil down to: if you're up north - we're leaving - if you're down south - we're staying. Trust us (again). If they get elected they're apparently going to renegotiate a better deal with the EU, then put it to another referendum, with an option to remain. (You can just imagine what the EU's "deal" would be, given those two choices. ). Then, most of the Labour Cabinet are going to campaign against their own party's deal - with the "Leader" remaining neutral on the matter. It all makes perfect sense. Actually - you couldn't make it up!

The best Anglo Saxon phrase that suits you is one I'm too polite to post.

Does the British Labour party really want to stay in the EU?
Does it consider the EU more close to the left than to sheer capitalism?
I was always puzzled about that, since most leftist parties across Europe don't support the EU.

Imo there's only one explanation:They don't support the EU, and been out of it with a "leftist deal" would be their No1 choice. But if this is not possible then better stay in rather than get out and be in the hands of the ruthless local capitalists. Meaning that at least within the EU they think that the working class has some protection.

Any comments?