Thursday, 12 September 2013

Marlowe academy improved ofsted report and some thoughts on selective education.


The picture is of Christopher Marlowe.

Here is the report download link http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2260689/urn/128340.pdf well the improved status is from “inadequate” to “requires improvement” which is a considerable improvement.

There are only four grades for secondary schools:

grade 1 (outstanding)
grade 2 (good)
grade 3 (requires improvement)
grade 4 (inadequate)

In Kent we have a selective education system and here in Ramsgate we have a grammar school where entry is by examination, this school is rated by ofsted as being “good”

We also have another non grammar in Ramsgate also rated as “good” and various other schools, mostly technically in Broadstairs but still very close to Ramsgate and all rated at least “good”

So we have a situation where if your child passes the selection exam (eleven plus or Kent test) you can sent it to the grammar school in Ramsgate, or with a mixture of choices and an appeal system, some other grammar school in Kent. However as there is already a “good” grammar school in Ramsgate, in practice you are likely to send them there.

Alternately if your child doesn’t pass the selection exam and particularly considering that there isn’t a shortage of secondary school places in the Ramsgate area, you have the choice of several “good” schools and up until this latest ofsted report, one “inadequate” school.

This produced a situation, before this ofsted report, where parents had a choice of sending their children to The Marlowe Academy rated “inadequate” or by choosing different schools in the area rated “good” and if this didn’t work using the appeals system.

So effectively this generated a second level of selection.      

159 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. One of your better comments!

      Delete
    2. Yeah, anon 9:12: I made it thinking of you who is just a dot on the landsape.

      Now clear off back to talking to yourself on ECR.

      Delete
    3. Back down to your usual standard

      Delete
    4. Yet more parking on the seafront and in the park today: 2 cars in the park and the 601 Ryl van and another car by the toilet and one by the kiosk. And an HGV or two on the seafront road. This town will decline even further if the amenities and views are being ruined.

      Delete
    5. That's my van and I'll park it where I bloody well want to!

      Delete
    6. If only that was true 7:56

      A Parking Warden.

      Delete
  2. It is indeed good to see the Marlowe Academy improving and, in addition, it offers some interesting sixth form courses all within excellent facilities.

    Thanet is blessed with some very good choices of secondary schooling, though it is perhaps unfortunate that over recent years we have lost our single sex school options with the amalgamations of Chatham and Clarendon Houses and Ellington and Hereson. The specialisations around our secondary schools are also varied though, personally, I would like to see more selection targeting vocational/technical, musical, artistic and sporting abilities or talents as well as academic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couple of thoughts here William, the first being that the Chatham and Clarendon federation is still single sex classes at least up to year ten. Frankly I am not sure what happens in the other schools as I don’t have any direct experience.

      The other is that I think that with the less academic students in this area there should be more emphasis on getting the qualifications necessary to work on the windfarms.

      This also comes from direct expertise, as one of the young lads in my family who is not an academic type has got these himself and manages to earn about a grand a week there when he is in this area.

      I guess there is a lot of emphasis on the basic academic subjects, which is fine if you are an academic person, however since the demise of the old secondary modern I am concerned that it is difficult for the more practically inclined to maintain some sort of status through secondary school.

      Delete
    2. Exactly the point I was making, Michael, about greater selection so as to utilise the talents of all our young in the sphere best suited to them. Some slant towards local employment opportunities is also worth exploring.

      Delete
  3. There was an ex REME Artificer Sergeant major who gained degrees and became a lecturer, in electronics and control engineering, in Reading. In 1984 he was trying to pilot a scheme there in which pupils opted out of conventional school at 13 and would gain ONC by age 16.

    The maths for ONC is of course academically demanding (A level applied). I suppose for an engineer to understand infinite bus bar and closed loop stability etc then HNC/Degree would be necessary.

    The idea was to stop the artificial distinction between academic and practical subjects.

    His initiative was soon stymied. But resistance to academia propaganda continued. For example leaking "Directives" that students of engineering were not to be awarded distinctions in Management Studies modules. And "Directives" to dumb down HNC at the college because its content was more difficult than a degree at a university.

    In fact passing management studies at a degree level module on an engineering course
    was simple there. You did an 8 week secondment to industry and wrote a report about your experience. Then drew passes or credits out of a hat !

    Some years later I was giving a telecoms office block the once over just ahead of a visit by a certain Mrs Thatcher. In one of the management suites she was due to visit they had left wall displays of their project management expertise. Critical Path Analysis type charts. And Mrs T with her formidable eye for detail did notice my amendment "At this point management is f-cked call an engineer". I thought of this when watching a recent TV documentary in which barrister Clark MP said "She could take you apart on the detail". I think a few BT top brass cn vouch for that.





    ReplyDelete
  4. Everyone's an expert on education. Of course. none of them work in a school or have ever worked in a school, but they went there when they were children and think that they remember it well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know what other peoples' expertise is, 4:54? Do you have a copy of everyone's CV? I have taught, I have been a school governor and I have had children through the system. The combination at least entitles one to an opinion though I make no claim to being an expert. I leave that to know it all folk like you.

      Delete
    2. Very simple Mr. Epps. When I read someone saying something stupid like:
      " The specialisations around our secondary schools are also varied though, personally, I would like to see more selection targeting vocational/technical, musical, artistic and sporting abilities or talents as well as academic."
      I know straight away that they don't work in education and haven't been through the doors of a school in a long time. I know that their entire experience of education is based on the self promoting guff that appears in the Thanet Gazette.

      Delete
    3. Wrong again, 8:11, I was a school governor very much involved with education until quite recently, but you continue to make your assumptions if it so pleases your tiny mind. By the way, when did you last see any self promoting guff about me in the Thanet Gazette. I avoid newspapers and media like the plague unlike certain other councillors.

      Delete
  5. You're the one waving around your credentials as a school governor. But when you're asked for specifics you go all coy. Many of the 'great and good' get themselves onto school governing bodies because it looks good on their resume. The self-promoting guff I referred to was the self-promoting guff put out by the schools themselves to try to boost their profiles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can you reasonably demand information of others when you reveal nothing about yourself, 9:10 PM? You question the right of others to have a view on education and when I respond you then start to all this when, where, what stuff? I first became a parent governor because my child was at said school, I did a number of courses pertaining to school governance issues and developed a real interest in the role. Later I was a community governor in a grammar school. Far from waving credentials I simply responded to your earlier comment, but, as ever with you, it is all about winding up and trying to discredit others.

      For the record, what is your expertise in the field of education and where are you at or have been?

      Delete
    2. William,

      This anon demonstrates that he knows nothing about education or indeed anything else for that matter. He is peeved because any erudite comment causes him to face his own inadequacy. He mocks that which he does not understand.

      Delete
    3. Good morning, John.

      Guess you are right, but wouldn't it be a pleasant change to engage in a proper debate instead of this monotonous routine of having some anonymous personage always seeking to rubbish anything one writes. Accept the whole point of debate is to argue ones case, but to simply ridicule that of others can only be of pleasure to the most simplistic of minds.

      No doubt we will now be attacked for working in unison and hogging the site. Only needs John Hamilton to join in and our friend will be convinced we are all one and the same person, a sort of three in one outside the scriptures.

      Delete
    4. Agreed William make your point but don't make it personal. Nor should any blogger seek to ridicule or bully another in the pursuit of making a point. I believe you said "I may not agree with your point of view but I will fight to ensure you are heard" Personally when anyone reverts to name calling the argument is lost.

      Delete
    5. Barry, agree with you on the right to voice (or write) an opinion, but not totally on the name calling. Some insult to the point of provoking a like response and whilst I do not stoop to obscenities, I reserve the right to tell an idiot he is one.

      Typically, over on ECR, Peter Checksfield, normally a peace and love relic of the flower people, was provoked by someone describing his models as 'hags' into a fairly outraged response for him. I would find that quite acceptable. If you use the pen (keyboard) as a sword you might just get stabbed in return.

      Delete
    6. A shame that your "training in governance" didn't teach you that the "Specialisms" attributed to secondary schools mean little or nothing. All secondary schools had to apply to become specialist schools in one or more areas to access funding a few years ago. Sure, they had to jump through a few hoops to secure the money, but this doesn't mean that a school purporting to have a specialism in a subject is any better than one which has a different specialism. Similarly, the fact that a school has a specialism in an academic subject does not mean that it is not delivering outstanding vocational training in another area. The whole notion of specialist schools was and is a nonsense. Secondary schools are there to give a broad and balanced education. That is what they ALL aim to do and anyone who has any knowledge of education knows this.

      Delete
    7. William I think we are on the same wavelength as it was the provoker that lost the argument not Peter. Name calling is never right especially when the discussion has already been lost. what I do not understand is the nonacceptance that anons have a point of view there maybe a valid reason for posting as an anon. What I agree with is anons using that as a reason to insult. In the real world that would be impossible to do.
      Conversations occur between people who have an idea what lies behind the thoughts of the other for example between a police officer and a drunk, what is impossible to understand on a blog is the thought processes of the participants as no one really knows what led to the comment in the 1st place.

      Delete
    8. I read the exchange on ECR and, in my opinion, Checksfield was well and truly blitzed. Moreover, it was richly deserved because it was Checksfield who initiated the exchange with a bit of puerile name calling. In the end he lost his rag and ended up posting something which had to be removed, which is a measure of the man.
      In the real world it is NOT "impossible" to insult people. It happens all of the time and mature, intelligent people learn to deal with it without threatening violence or calling in the lawyers. In fact, the only people who DO call in the lawyers are people who are either, incredibly rich, or incredibly stupid.

      Delete
    9. Anon 2:43 PM,

      And your name is?

      Why not use your real name in order to demonstrate your claim that it is possible to insult people in the real world.

      With your permission can I be credibly well off and just a litle bit stupid and still call in a lawyer?

      Oh yes, I posted and susequently removed something that said I was 6'6" is that therefore the measure of me?

      Delete
    10. I reckon it's wise to remain anonymous. You really don't know what some of the named posters are capable of. I mean, you and Hamilton are constantly abusive. How do I know that you won't take it a stage further? You're pretty obsessive about uncovering people's identities. The last thing I need is the three stooges stalking me when I go down the Darby and Joan club. Moreover, some of the "named" posters aren't using their real names at all, but you don't seem to mind that.

      Delete
    11. If you're so brave anon, let's meet! Name the time & place & I'll be there.

      Delete
    12. Better still, here's my phone number: 01843 232969. Call me (if you have the guts!).

      Delete
    13. Pointing out someone posts lies and chellenging thier BS is not abuse, it issimply dealing with a liar and BSer, plain n simple.

      Delete
    14. Nice one Peter.

      Will "John Hamilton" post his number too?

      Delete
    15. Anon I am well aware the 'specialisations' don't mean very much other than a bit of extra cash in the kitty which is why I posed the suggestion of more alternatives aimed at a variety of talents. Once we had grammars, technical schools and secondary moderns, a system that disappeared with the move to the one size fits all comprehensive, yet which provided a further tier of selection and led many into more technical careers.

      It is but a thought or suggestion, something to discuss. It was never intended as anything more and I would have enjoyed reading others ideas on the subject. Not simply being slagged off for having no expertise by someone who makes no attempt to disclose his/her own qualifications on the subject.

      Delete
    16. Anon 3:53pm,

      I feel that you take yourself much to seriously.

      Delete
    17. "Pointing out someone posts lies and chellenging thier BS is not abuse, it issimply dealing with a liar and BSer, plain n simple" posting abuse which is your usual way is not Hamilton. maybe should take a leaf out of Peter's book and post your phone number as well but then I doubt you are brave enough

      Delete
    18. Perhaps, Anon, you would like to exchange numbers with John Hamilton. No, why did I think not. You are the last person to start going on about lack of bravery.

      Delete
    19. your a fine one to talk Farnie "anon" Barnard

      Delete
    20. Yes, come on John & Farnie, post your numbers too (or let's all meet!).

      Delete
    21. Checksfield, tomorrow, 14:00, outside the Belgian Bar. I'll have nothing on but my socks. Bring your camera.

      Delete
    22. dont forget your umbrella

      Delete
    23. Will he be bringing "his girls" ?

      Delete
    24. When anon's post using their names, I may well post my phone number, till then, really don;t see why is should, or even why I should at all, I only really give my number to people I like, and people I may do business with, Can't imagine 99% of people here fall into either category.

      5:08, remind me again why I should a crap about the opinion of a coward hiding behind anonymous profile...

      Delete
    25. "I may well post my phone number" then again you probably won't

      Delete
    26. *sigh* How stupid are you 9:27!

      "When anon's post using their names, I may well post my phone number, till then, really don;t see why is should, or even why I should at all, I only really give my number to people I like"

      Think that covers it (again)

      Delete
  6. Technology Initiative Schools competition look at the females outnumbering males in the winner list

    I mentioned Reading above. Reading University, with whom the ex REME ASM was connected (Control Engineering), was I think behind the idea to oppose dumbing down HNC (The working man's degree).

    That was 1984. But look now. Reading University amongst top 1% of universities worldwide.

    Resist the dumbing down.

    There was/is a lecturer at Thanet Tech who IMO was leading edge. His job I think was to take ex Comprehensive school kids and do a bridging course to propel them to university. I recall reading some of the maths learning text he wrote himself. The man was/is an education genius.

    Thanet's very own Sylvanus P Thompson. How to make maths more easily understood, to make it a language of learning and a tool of design.

    Unsung hero.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Technology Initiative Schools competition look at the females outnumbering males in the winner list

    I mentioned Reading above. Reading University, with whom the ex REME ASM was connected (Control Engineering), was I think behind the idea to oppose dumbing down HNC (The working man's degree).

    That was 1984. But look now. Reading University amongst top 1% of universities worldwide.

    Resist the dumbing down.

    There was/is a lecturer at Thanet Tech who IMO was leading edge. His job I think was to take ex Comprehensive school kids and do a bridging course to propel them to university. I recall reading some of the maths learning text he wrote himself. The man was/is an education genius.

    Thanet's very own Sylvanus P Thompson. How to make maths more easily understood, to make it a language of learning and a tool of design.

    Unsung hero.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Due respects, 1:26 PM, but according to the Times World University Rankings for 2012/13, the University of Reading is not even in the top 100. Only four British Universities feature in the top 10 and that certainly does not include Reading.

      Delete
  8. Top 1% in the areas where it actually matters ?

    I was impressed with the sort of thinking in that area. I think going back years the nearby Army Apprentices College Arborfield was delivering an ONC programme alongside the trade training.

    As far as I recall every lecturer in electrical,electronics and control engineering at Reading tech (which could take you up to B Eng Hons IIRC) had to be a consultant involved in industry as they didn't like lecturers who only lectured.

    Whereas say Ebbw Vale Tech was gaining dispensations to lower requirement for the award of HNC. This appeared attractive in the days of the WDA. Because the tech could make its courses more bespoke for the needs of industry. In that college case, control courses supporting say Fords of Bridgend. Assuming that the grant aided screwdriver economy being created would not require design or innovation maths.

    Who ever the man was/is at Thanet Tech he knows the score. Beyond a point maths becomes a language of learning. Just try explaining transient response of a system in English !

    I think in the old days Canterbury Tech also walked the line well. Balanced between the needs of local industry, like NCB or Pfizer, and maintaining an academic standard that would be useful (on the demise of the existing industry) to have a flexible workforce in the area. And useful in equipping their students with the language of learning for future courses.

    But IMO Reading was ahead of the game in its thinking.

    When one previously grant aided company in South Wales closed, its personnel dept told Dept of Employment their 600 strong workforce had no "Transferable skills". And despite myself I had to concede that Maggie Thatcher had a point. Grant aid, dumbing down and finally demise are the antithesis of competitiveness.

    A simple example. When GEC Transformers left Thanet was there anyone left who could design and build a distribution transformer ?



    ReplyDelete
  9. Top 1% in the areas where it actually matters ?

    I was impressed with the sort of thinking in that area. I think going back years the nearby Army Apprentices College Arborfield was delivering an ONC programme alongside the trade training.

    As far as I recall every lecturer in electrical,electronics and control engineering at Reading tech (which could take you up to B Eng Hons IIRC) had to be a consultant involved in industry as they didn't like lecturers who only lectured.

    Whereas say Ebbw Vale Tech was gaining dispensations to lower requirement for the award of HNC. This appeared attractive in the days of the WDA. Because the tech could make its courses more bespoke for the needs of industry. In that college case, control courses supporting say Fords of Bridgend. Assuming that the grant aided screwdriver economy being created would not require design or innovation maths.

    Who ever the man was/is at Thanet Tech he knows the score. Beyond a point maths becomes a language of learning. Just try explaining transient response of a system in English !

    I think in the old days Canterbury Tech also walked the line well. Balanced between the needs of local industry, like NCB or Pfizer, and maintaining an academic standard that would be useful (on the demise of the existing industry) to have a flexible workforce in the area. And useful in equipping their students with the language of learning for future courses.

    But IMO Reading was ahead of the game in its thinking.

    When one previously grant aided company in South Wales closed, its personnel dept told Dept of Employment their 600 strong workforce had no "Transferable skills". And despite myself I had to concede that Maggie Thatcher had a point. Grant aid, dumbing down and finally demise are the antithesis of competitiveness.

    A simple example. When GEC Transformers left Thanet was there anyone left who could design and build a distribution transformer ?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some valid points, Anon, and of course, those old RAF Apprentice schools produced the nations needs in a whole range of aviation related engineers for many years. RAF Halton and RAF Cosford had many apprentices who went on to to senior rank both in the service and the aviation industry outside. I was myself on the staff of No 3 School of Technical Training for a few years and it was a sad day when such schools closed to non adult entrants.

      Delete
    2. Ah an RAF chap Cllr Epps that explains your fanaticism over Manston closing. from the earlier debate, and a school governor you must have been as incompetent as you are as a councillor.

      The debate on these blogs over Thanet's future economy etc seems hijacked by ex-RAF chumps like yourself and Holyer trying to find anything to praise about being polluted by Infratil and TDC.

      When the Anon censorship is on this blog devolves into half a dozen childish insults and some drab points from yesteryear. Then the Anon censorship is removed as presumably readership plummets and the debate dries up.

      Delete
    3. Anon 3:02, charm personified as usual. Please explain to me what has air force apprentice training got to do with a civilian airport at Manston?

      What a shame your finishing school didn't teach you how to debate without resorting to silly names and insults or, better still, just finish you off.

      Delete
    4. Eppsy dengrating insuts on blogs...by throwing a few insults.

      The point Eppsy about your RAF service was how it applied to your RAF fanaticism of Manston as a commercial/viable airport ie you're an ex-RAF chump stuck in the past and ignoring the pollution from Manston and its lack of commercial viability.

      Or are you saying there is no pollution and Manston is a terrific success and likely to be an even greater success?

      Delete
    5. I do not recall ever saying anything remotely like that, Anon, but you seem to have this fixation that anyone who served in the RAF must regard what is now a civilian airport as a success.

      As to the insults, do you consider calling me an ex RAF chump being polite? However, if you think I have insulted you why don't you contact the Police Commissioner which seems to be all the vogue at the moment.

      Delete
  10. You are making some good points and, in the process, illustrating the silliness of current methods of evaluating the effectiveness of teaching institutions. At the moment everything hinges on the examination results. Good results are taken to mean that the institution is a good institution. Poorer results are taken to mean that the institution needs to improve. However, a student can be taught well but may still fail to shine in an examination if that examination is a poor one. Poor examinations are ones which fail to test the breadth of knowledge and, instead, focus on less important or obscure areas of knowledge, which are of limited importance in the real world. But surely the best measure of success is how well your students do after they have left the institution? Education is about coping with life in a changing world and the most successful people are those who have acquired the skills to adapt to new and challenging situations. The best teachers are the ones who have spent time working outside academia and know that academic results are only part of the picture. How often have you met a person who is very successful but says that they did not do well at school? I would argue that they didn't do well "academically" but that they may well have gained other skills which were of use to them. It's high time we stopped measuring institutions only by their examination results and started looking at the outcomes for their students.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Someone's reposted an interesting twitter message from Louise Oldfield on ECR's blog, where she's asked Kent police commissioner Ann Barnes to look at John's blog & messages, and to be honest I don't blame her... I largely support John's basic campaigns against NIMBYism & the preventing of new Thanet building developments, but NOT the way he attacks people online that he refuses to meet them face to face. What's your thoughts Epps, Holyer, Child, Mallinson, etc?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter neither do I Peter, abuse is never justified

      Delete
    2. Oh dear, if people don't like the truth, then they really have no business putting themselves in the limelight. Entertainingly, I don't remember revealing anything about Oldfield, as she has yet to really have the courage to try to defend her laughable backing on the Margate Nimby's.

      Perhaps Peter, before acting so holier than thou, you might want to consider the tack you suggested I take in the fight to bring Tesco's to Margate ;)

      Delete
    3. JH is beyond the pale: the epitome of a troll just insulting. Holyer and Epps simply have nothing to say and crank out a few petty insults occasionally. Mallinson veers towards the JH debates usually after being proved wrong on whatever point he was making.

      Largely they seem to witter on about their ex-army days of 50 years ago. Dull.

      Delete
    4. Mallinson is ex-Army, and Holyer and Epps ex-RAF and Holyer's Dad was in the RAF. Not sure about JH but he only blogs about cllr Driver.

      Delete
    5. No wonder we lost an Empire!

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 7:08,
      And you were in the Girl Guides. Very pretty you looked you, all in pink. Then those men in white coats came and took you away, but hey that's the way it is with a personality disorder.

      Delete
    7. Anon 11:19pm 7:08pm,

      You are talking to yourself again. You really must get a grip.

      The British Empire was never held by force of arms. But then I would not expect you to know or understand that. The circumstances are too complex for you to grasp. You seek to destroy that which you do not understand, which is pretty much everything and everyone around you. I pity you.

      Delete
    8. Soldiers do not lose empires, 8:38, they are simp0ly given away by politicians, in our case Clem Atlee and his crew after WWII.

      Delete
    9. When I lived in Bombay in the late '80s I would often be drawn into discussions with Indian friends about the British Raj, many of whom had lived through it. My overriding impression was that they did not hate us, or even dislike us, quite the reverse in many cases.

      I remember one evening in particular with a retired Brigadier (he had fought at Imphal) and a retired High Court Judge. Both Indian. They explained to me that the bloodbath which followed Jinnah's Partition was entirely the fault of Clement Attlee. His announcement of a date for independence was sudden, arbitrary and designed solely to please his socialist followers in UK. Nehru and Gandhi and the ICS advised Attlee to delay independence by at least another 6 months and to negotiate with Jinnah in order to avoid bloodshed. Attlee refused. The result was an uncontrolled Partition that caused the deaths of millions of Hindus and Muslims.

      They also explained to me that at the time India was not asking for full Independence. Rather they wanted Dominion status leading to full Independence in 20 years [as was the case with Australia, Canada & New Zealand].

      So sad.

      Delete
    10. Agreed, John, and I met many Indians in Malaysia who had moved there after Indian independence because it was more stable still under British colonial rule at the time.

      In fairness to Attlee, he only started the process of the indecent haste to dismantle the empire and there were many other overly rushed moves to so called self determination, sometimes even against majority wishes like Malta, with both major political parties culpable in the process. Look at Cyprus where under British rule, Turks and Greeks lived side by side, but were immediately at each others throats after independence resulting in one of the longest UN peacekeeping missions on record. Don't even go there with Rhodesia, where a Conservative government allowed the results of the most corrupted election to stand and handed over a country to a despot.

      The Americans have the answer, simply make overseas possessions another state of the union or just outnumber the locals.

      Delete
    11. William,

      I was in Cyprus in '63 when the fighting first broke out. It was started by nutters like Nicos Sampson. The Turkish and the Greek Cypriots had no desire to fight each other. They had lived together peacefully for years, often in the same village. I saw the SITREPS and signals. There were frequent situations where the opposing sides were firing on each other and the British Army and the 'Rocks' - unarmed - positioned themselves in between, and more or less told them to pack it in and go home. Which they did for both sides regarded the British as protectors. They trusted us. I have never felt so proud of my country.

      Delete
    12. John, I was there as a Redcap Lieutenant (pre Rock days) during the EOKA emergency and regularly did the 'Aunt Sally' bit standing between sectarian crowds intent on battering each other. Was also with the snatch party that arrested Nicos Samson in Strovolos. Unfortunately the prosecution in that case relied too heavily on a confession, which the defence demonstrated was extracted under duress, and so, instead of being convicted of murder and hung, he was imprisoned for the lesser offence of possessing a firearm and released at independence. The mischief he made thereafter is very much to blame for the subsequent troubles and ultimate partition.

      Delete
    13. Old farts, wasting what little time they have left, wittering on about the good old days when Britain had an empire.

      Delete
    14. anon was it frustrating waiting for anon ban to be lifted before you could post

      Delete
    15. What a particularly unpleasant, nasty little creep you are, 6:52. It must have been eating you up all day because you could not get on here and, when you do, you simply make an insulting remark. So what have you contributed, wit, knowledge, some salient point, no, just your usual ageist rubbish. Furthermore, you don't even know when Britain had an empire because most of it had gone long before the times John and I were discussing.

      Delete
    16. Cyprus Colonial Office Police Arthur Burns

      I don't know if you remember him William or if he was before your time. You certainly know one of the Army lads he, with Home Office, selected for special duties with police. He also reported to Burns, given the latter's Cyprus experience, on the possibilities of police use of helicopters and took part in early exploration of Intelligence led policing.



      Delete
    17. Anon, it was a long time ago and although we were working in aid of the civil power and operating out of the Central Police Station, Nicosia it is difficult to remember the names other than the very senior ranks and the few one worked alongside. The Chief Constable was Geoffrey White, later the Chief Constable of Kent.

      Delete
    18. Anon 6:52 pm,

      The anon ban is lifted and your slime trail immediately appears.

      I wish that we still had an Empire. We could banish you to some fly blown outpost where you could clean latrines for the natives. You'd enjoy that and it's perfect task for your level of competence.

      Delete
  12. Peter, JH's language is a bit too colourful for me, though like you, I support his campaign against the Thanet negativity disease. Nonetheless, I rather wonder whether getting police to chase down people who swear on blog sites is making best use of their time. I would much rather they caught real villains. There is also a question here, Peter, who does more damage to Thanet, JH with his use of the F word or Louise with her court injunctions against projects in Margate that most people support?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William do you think the end justifies the means i.e abusing people is justified if their views differ from yours.
      There are plenty of other ways to make your point. I do not agree with changing my political views just to get elected like Latchford and Driver but at least they do speak ay public meetings unlike Hamilton

      Delete
    2. William, both Louise & Ian have done some worthwhile campaigning too in my opinion, but even if they haven't they don't deserve such abuse... and if John (or anyone else) is guilty of committing a criminal offence then by all means get the police involved.

      Exactly anon. I'd respect "John Hamilton" more if he said these things to their faces.

      Delete
    3. "John Holyer" always goes quite whenever anyone criticises "John Hamilton", how strange!

      Delete
    4. anon 10:03pm,

      You are hopelessly wrong, but I expect you're used to that.

      Delete
    5. Anon 10:03,

      I share the same initials as John Hamilton and therefore you leap to the erroneous conclusion that we must be one and the same. Still, I suppose that's as far as your addled intellect can take you.

      Delete
    6. Ignore anon John Holyer, but please give me your opinion on my question earlier. Here it is again in case you missed it:

      I largely support John's basic campaigns against NIMBYism & the preventing of new Thanet building developments, but NOT the way he attacks people online that he refuses to meet them face to face. What's your thoughts Epps, Holyer, Child, Mallinson, etc?

      Delete
    7. Why do people think that because I call a spade a spade, i would have any urge to waste my valuable time in the company of people I have no desire to spend my leisure time with.

      What an utterly perverse thought.

      Delete
    8. If the police decide that someone who complains may have a case, then will you voluntarily go to the police?

      Delete
    9. Peter,

      Your 11:45 15 Sept.

      In the main I support the thrust of John Hamilton's arguments albeit he presents them in a robust manner. So he swears in public but this is not uncommon for this day and age. In my view Louise Oldfield is being rather precious, by seeking to have one of her critics silenced by way of a prosecution. This bearing in mind that she is a wannabe rough tough protesting politician. The police have better things on which to spend our money.

      Richard Littlejohn would probably describe Lousis Oldfield as a "dopey bird", a favourite term of his. This would certainly cut deeper than swearing at her.

      Delete
    10. 8:24, cannot see the relevance of the 'end justifying the means' as this is an on going situation with no end game in sight. I have already said JH uses language I would not, but that I agree with some of his stance against Thanet negativity. What I do question is whether involving the police over on line swearing is a proper use of their over stretched resources. If people play in the political game they must accept that they will not always be loved.

      Delete
    11. I think the big difference is that (sometimes) "abrasive" local politicians such as Latchford, Driver, Ezekiel and Worrow aren't afraid to say things to people's faces. Somewhat different to hiding behind an alias.

      Any thoughts on all this Michael Child?

      Delete
    12. I doubt if even Richard Littlejohn would call a disabled old woman a "monkey". That's a bit worse than swearing imo.

      Delete
    13. You have a point, Peter, but have not answered the question about is what Louise is doing proper use of police time and why via the police commissioner in Maidstone. What's wrong with our local old bill.

      Elsewhere you may have noticed that the odd, perhaps that should be very odd, anon regularly describes me as an old duffer, a waste of public money, a wriggler (on issues well outside the remit of a parish councillor) and so on. At times I have considered not commenting anymore, but that would be simply caving in to faceless creep and I guess it goes with the exposure.

      Point is, Peter, if I can take the hits as a fairly low profile non campaigning type parish councillor, surely those who set out to seek the limelight or beat the drum on every local issue should be able to also. As has also been said, insults directed at peoples' ages, infirmities or even, in your case, photographic ventures can be more cutting than the F word.

      Delete
    14. Peter,

      Please go back and read again what I wrote. I do not understand your point in the context of my comment[0842Z]. I was offering Richard Littlejohn as an example of how it should be done. Which is in a less course but more powerful manner. Was this not clear? Probably not, I give up.

      On second thoughts maybe you are objecting to the term "dopey Bird"? In which case please take your ojection to Mr Dacre and not me.

      Delete
    15. I'm not Louise Oldfield's spokesman, but why don't you ask her yourself? Her email address is at the top of her Margate Architecture blog.

      Regarding whether or not particular insults are illegal, that's up to the police or a lawyer to decide, not me.

      Delete
    16. I really couldn't care less about what Little Richard's John says or does.

      Delete
    17. Peter,

      I do wish that you would pay attention to what I say rather than what you want me to say. Clearly you have an axe to grind where I'm concerned. You object to my reply; but I cannot fathom just what that might be. So be it. Your argument is with John Hamilton and not me, no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

      Delete
    18. You said: "The police have better things on which to spend our money."

      My reply is: That's not for you or I to decide, it's up to the police and / or lawyers.

      Clear enough?


      Delete
    19. Peter,

      Your: 1155

      If you had said this in the first place then I could have saved myself the fag of attempting to write a reasoned reply to your earlier comments.

      As you allude it for the CPS to decide whether or not a case should go to court. However, you are now objecting to my having an opinion on the matter. I find this curious coming from someone whose opinions are freely scattered about this blog.

      Peter, it may be the case that you simply do not like me for the person that you perceive me to be. In which case please be honest enough to say so. I can then attempt to disabuse you or ignore you as the mood takes me.

      Delete
    20. Mr Holyer I hope you will respond on the points I make not on the fact that I post anonymously. The thrust of Hamilton is he attacks Nimbyism however his attacks on Michael and Barry miss the point of their argument. That is the purchase of Pleasurama by Keegan was never about developing the site. I have read Barry's & Michael's blogs and nowhere on there do either of them state they do not want development, in fact the site is crying out for proper development. What both say is Keegan bought Pleasurama as a landgrab exercise without any consideration for the people of Thanet and Ramsgate in particular. They both have gone about exposing this fiasco in different ways but that is not NIMBYISM. So why is Hamilton attacking them for something they haven't said. The attacks seem very personal in nature to me IMHO.

      Delete
    21. The flaw in your case, 1:04, is that Terence Painter, who surely should have known if there was no plan to develop the site, spent a lot of money setting up and staffing a prestigious office opposite the harbour in Ramsgate specifically to market the apartments. An office he had to later close when the development did not take off at a great financial and local public standing loss.

      I think it is more correct to say that Michael's stance has always been about the risk assessment of the proposed development whereas Barry introduced the suggestion that it was just about securing a lease to profit on later with no intention to develop.

      Truth is, there is no way of knowing for sure, but the evidence would suggest that even Terence Painter thought the development was for real at the outset and it could be that the changing financial climate was the real culprit. The main thing now is to ensure we move forward and utilise the site to the benefit of Ramsgate rather than wasting our time in battles over who is to blame for what or trying to guess what was in the developer's mind.

      Delete
    22. Anonymous 1:04 pm,

      I am afraid that my reply does not contain the answer that you were hoping for.

      You are asking me to explain John Hamilton's motive for saying what he does. How can I reasonably be expected to do that anymore than I could explain your motive in asking me? The only honest answer I can give you is that I do not know.

      My opinion, for what it's worth, is having looked at the evidence in the round and on the balance of probabilities I conclude that the developers were land banking and never had a serious intention of developing the site, which they intended to sell on at a later date for a handsome profit. Furthermore TDC was not corrupt. It was simply incompetent in allowing itself to be bamboozled by a crafty developer who has not broken the law.

      Delete
    23. William I was pointing out the issues with Hamilton and his thrust which seems to be Thanet negativism not the merits of Michael or Barry's arguments. Neither have ever said there shouldn't be development which is what NIMBYISM is all about.
      Whether Painter knew about or colluded is a different discussion and not what I said.

      Delete
    24. John, if the developer bamboozled TDC he also pulled the wool over the eyes of his agent who was very influential in the early negotiations. Personally I do believe they intended to develop the site, but as the economic climate worsened and financing became increasingly difficult that changed. Now they may well be looking at profiting on the lease they have on the site.

      Trying looking at it from Terence Painter's side. There he was, a successful local estate agent with a strong reputation in the field of new developments. He nails his flag to the Pleasurama plan and invest a lot of money in a prestigious new office opened with the usual bunting and fanfare of publicity. A couple of years on he has to close the prestigious office, which has become something of a white elephant, seriously damaging his reputation (and wallet) as a successful local estate agent.

      Something does not add up even in my 'rock' type mind.

      Delete
    25. Anon 1:34 pm,

      At the risk of appearing to speak for John Hamilton, my understanding of his NIMBY argument is that the protesters do not want a block of flats instead they want a community centre or an art center, presumably financed from public funds.

      Delete
    26. John that may be what other protesters want (irrelevant to what I said) I was taking issue with Hamilton's unwarranted attacks on Michael & Barry. At the cost of repeating myself again neither of them have ever said they were against development. Just that they believed this was the wrong "developer".

      William either Painter colluded with or was taken in by Keegan either way the argument is nothing to do with Painter but is against Keegan as the developer.

      Delete
    27. William,

      I take your point. There is as you suggest an innocent explanation based on the recession.

      Perhaps I spent too many years in job which frequently required me to interview people who had the intention of lying to me in order to advance their purpose. This has made me overly suspicious.

      Whatever the case may be I agree with you that something does not add up.

      Delete
    28. Actually Michael has said many times that he doesn't want a development there, for various reasons including height, roof shape, foundations, sea defences, access road, etc.

      Delete
    29. Anon 2:04, agree the argument is about the choice of developer, but I do not subscribe to the belief that there was never any intention to develop the site. If Painter colluded it was to his own considerable cost and loss of standing which seems an unlikely scenario.

      On John Hamilton, he has attacked Michael over the flood risk assessment and the cliff fall aspects whilst Barry has been taken to task over one or two statements that he perceived were more based on assumption than fact. It is Louise Oldfield he mainly seems to attack over NIMBYISM and Ian Driver is the usual butt of his more extreme insults. Whether any of this warrants police action I would question and is it any worse than the Anon below who refers to his fellow commentators as 'old farts.' If people feel that they have been insulted beyond what is legally acceptable, I would rather see them taking legal advise at their own expense first before involving police. Their lawyer can then decide whether it constitutes a criminal or civil action matter.

      Delete
    30. Only in Stoogeville could a group of bumbling old barrack-room lawyers believe that insults are illegal. For the last time, there is no law against insulting somebody. There IS a law against defamation i.e. making a false statement to harm someone's reputation, but that is not the same thing at all. If I say that I think you are a bumbling old fart it is NOT illegal. It may be rude and it may be inappropriate but is my opinion and we have the right to free speech. Moreover, in thecase of the three stooges it is undoubtedly true and so, cannot be classed as defamation.

      Delete
    31. For once, Anon 2:30, I am with you and am appalled that someone should be wasting police time over something they have been called on a blog site. That said, I think you are a bit of a rude barsteward, but if that is how you get your kicks, who am I to deprive you.

      Have a good afternoon.

      Delete
    32. William I believe your interpretation of Michael's stance is slightly flawed and I'm sure he will comment in due course however I think his stance is more akin to his belief that any development that occurs between a cliff face and the sea should have been properly assessed something he believes wasn't done properly not that he said it shouldn't be done at all.
      On Painter I have read the transcript of the presentation given in December 2002 by Painter, and also confirmed by David Green, which relied heavily on the input from Whitbread. The issue here was that Whitbread clearly stated in February 2003 they were not involved. So either the developer fell out with Whitbread over that 2 month period or Painter used their name in vain. Maybe we will never know the truth!! All I will say is something strange happened the net result has been a bombsite for over 10 years.

      Delete
    33. Actually, Anon 2:59, I do not think my interpretation of Michael's stance is flawed having followed his arguments on this site over several years. I have not said Michael is opposed to development, but he has questioned many safety and risk assessment issues and even the road access to the site. I do not disagree with that.

      I did say also that Painter was very influential in negotiating this deal originally and I believe he really thought it was going to happen. Probably fair to say he has suffered as much as anybody, if not more than most, over this non event though he is in a risky business.

      The future is what is now important and I am not sure all these recriminations about who knew what serve any useful purpose. The important thing is for Ramsgate folk to get their own council firmly on sides and, through them, push TDC for action. That may turn out to cost us all through our Council Tax ultimately, but better than having another decade of eyesore.

      Delete
    34. William it isn't recrimination in my thoughts but this "Those that fail to learn the lessons of the past are destined to repeat the same mistakes in the future"

      Delete
    35. Very true, Anon, but we can only learn from our past mistakes if we understand what they were, that is based on fact not conjecture.

      Delete
    36. William according to what Harvey Patterson provided and posted in Michael's downloadable 2009 agreement NO "due diligence" was done prior to what is evidenced just prior to the signing of the 2009 variation agreement. So that means No "due diligence" between 2002 and 2009. that cannot be the way to do business nor is it conjecture.
      If and when this agreement is thrown out, at some cost probably, all we can do is hope TDC is more professional in their business practice.

      Delete
    37. You (we) do NOT have a right to free speech, whether you like it or not. If JH or anyone else had said much milder things that could be interpreted as in any way (a) racist or (b) homophobic, then the police would've taken things far more seriously. For some reason those two take priority over anything else (ageism, sexism, etc).

      Delete
    38. So anon 5.08 is calling someone a racist when they are not, does that constitute racism or is that just an opinion.

      Delete
    39. Again I agree, and one would hope far more enquiries would be made than were in 2002 when this developer was originally granted the lease. I meant more all this stuff about lack of intent from the outset of which we cannot be sure and which serves no purpose anyway.

      Far from hope, I would like to see the good people of Thanet demand of their district councillors due diligence when next proposals and bidders for the site are considered.

      Delete
    40. You'll have to consult one of the three stooges on that one 5:13!

      Delete
    41. I have disagreed with Michael on a number of occasions on a number issues, is that now being peddled as a crime...

      James simply posts inaccurate BS, and attempts to have it swallowed as fact, and doesn't like being exposed for it.

      As far as Oldfield is concerned, it appears she likes to stick her nose into places where it really isn't welcome, where she can prevent Margate moving forward in any way shape of form. Her latest whine amounts to no more that "the nasty man was horrid to a friend of mine" and clearly she once again demonstrates that she thinks she is entitled to some kind of special treatment, ignoring the usual course her whining would take, a she knows if she rocked up at Margate nick with such a laughable whine, she would be laughed at, and asked to leave.

      Delete
    42. PS, of course not 5:13, especially as the person named as racist clearly is. If that were the case, many would be languishing in police cells, regretting the day they made spurious comments re Farage ;)

      Delete
    43. Whereas if you turned up at Margate nick with one of your hateful rants you'd be arrested!

      Delete
    44. "James simply posts inaccurate BS" this is a complete non statement from Hamilton in his usual style. dissected "inaccurate" what specific point is wrong? "BS" just why is it BS. Provide some specific examples so others can look at the accuracy of your generalistic statement.

      Delete
    45. Unlikely 9:13, as I simply highlight the truth and where others lie and bullshit ;)

      9:42, pick a subject James has BS'd about, from the status of prominent Kent companies, to basic business practice, then take your pick of James's posts. I'm not going to do your research for you, if you're to dam lazy to do it for yourself.

      Delete
    46. So Hamilton another general statement. So where do you highlight the "truth"? Certainly nowhere on here

      Delete
    47. Someone who lies about his own name exposes the "truth" lol!

      Delete
    48. 10.33 "Someone who lies about his own name exposes the "truth" lol!" even funnier anon

      Delete
    49. The problem with the Pelasurama development is the offshiore secrecy and lack of blueprints and continued development despite public opposition etc. This doesn't suggest just a developer taking a punt on developing a site but councillor/civil servnat involvement too. Presumably for a bung.

      As so often with TDC we find the only people supporting a prject are TDC itself - and overwhelming public opposition: Manston, Pleausrama, WC, Ferrygate secrecy etc etc.

      No doubt Jack Shack, Beach Retreat and Margate Hotel and Masnton Parkway rail are next.

      Delete
    50. There's no "overwhelming public opposition" towards Manston, and certainly not towards Westwood Cross!

      Delete
    51. Looks like Ann Barnes is taking Louise Oldfield's allegations against John Hamilton seriously, even if Cllr Epps isn't.

      Delete
    52. Really, Anon, let's wait and see if calling people names is an offence and remind me, does Ann Barnes have a power of arrest? She is not a police office just a political appointee.

      Delete
    53. That's true, though I'm sure she at least has influence and can ensure that police look into it. Hopefully Ian Driver will give them his help and support too.

      Delete
    54. Holy smoke, if I was JH I would be really quaking with Ann Barnes and Ian Driver on my case. Wasn't it Driver who reported another blogger to the police for threatening words to another anonymous a while back. Whatever happened to that piece of police time wasting. Get real, there are folk out there being murdered, raped, robbed and swindled, yet you want the police to chase around arresting people for name calling.

      If poor Louise thinks she has suffered some defamation or insult she should consult a solicitor at her own expense, not waste our taxes.

      Delete
    55. It's not a waste to expose bullies.

      Delete
    56. Sticks and stones and all that, 4:44. If people engage in a debate they must accept they will not always be popular. Look at MPs who are called all sorts of names even by newspapers. It will be a sad day for freedom of speech if folk start getting arrested because they called somebody a name on a blog site.

      You also ignored the question about Driver's last bit of police time wasting.

      Delete
    57. Looks like Epps forgot to sign in.

      Delete
    58. If reducing "freedom of speech" also reduces online anonymous nastiness then that will be a very good thing indeed.

      Delete
    59. Why, 4:57, is it you are so obsessed with me that you even have to bring up my name when I am not taking part in the exchanges of comments. Very flattering that you think of me so much, but not quite sure what your point is.

      As for signing in, when did you ever?

      Delete
    60. Interesting post by Hamilton on Geoff Barnes's blog in the early hours of the morning. quoting from it John Hamilton on September 16, 2013 at 02:52 said:"For the record,. there is nobody on FB or the blogs whom I would class as a friend. The real world is where I live my boy, not the fairy land you SO wish was true"

      So at least one thing is clear Hamilton only posts when he wants to use or abuse everyone else. Makes you wonder just why he bothers!!

      Delete
    61. This gets better and better! So now, not being nice to someone is a crime ans I am chastised for allegedly not using my own name (which of course I am) by some knob hiding behind an anon post! PRICELESS!

      Overwhelming public opposition? Where? Arlington petitio, less than 500, pleasurama, 1000, Manston, turn out 2,000! This from a population of over 130,000!

      There was a town whose name escapes me, of 9000, that raised a petiton of over 11,000! Overwhelming opposition on Thanet, no. Anon 3:10, oh dear, you make various guesses, and make a conclusion without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever, well done, you have now lowered yourself to the appallingly low standard of post practiced by James!

      Delete
    62. No "overwhelming public opposition to Manston?" - where have you been Checksfield? Every public meeting is against it. Hence the councillors not allowing night flihgts, resignations etc etc.

      Only Carter has pooped up again for the Parkway again.

      Delete
    63. Certainly no opposition here in Margate. Even the usual NIMBYs who oppose everything never mention it, neither do any of the Margate-based blogs (Flaig's, Oldfield's, Luke's, etc).

      I'm still curious why you think most people oppose Westwood Cross to, despite most people (erm) shopping there!

      Delete
    64. Peter is right. The people of Margate, Cliftonville, Broadstairs, Westgate and Birchington couldn't care less about Manston, and even those in Ramsgate are far from united on the issue. So to say that most people in Thanet is against it is clearly a lie.

      Delete
    65. Peter's right there is no opposition to Manston in Margate. And no support either. The Margate consultation meetings on Manston were empty. The public there hadn't twigged about the noise not being a problem but the air pollution was. The same Ramsgate meetings were packed.

      7:53 seems to have been to different Ramsgate meetings to me: i can;t think of more than half a dozon people in the packed meetings spoke up in favour of Manston. Those that did often worked at the airport.

      Ramsgate was completely united against Manston. The worrying and unanswered point is how come the councillors were the only ones speaking up for it - and which of them is in favour now?

      And who apart from Carter and Gale is in favour of the Parkway?

      Delete
    66. And the vast majority of people in Ramsgate are against Westwood Cross too, and never ever shop there.

      Delete
    67. And in the skies over Ramsgate there's flying pigs.

      Delete
  13. And (inevitably) an interesting exchange peters out into wittering twaddle between old farts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 9:59 pm,

      You are one of the old farts, who do you suggest are others?

      Delete
    2. You're one of the wittering old farts referred to Holyer in case you were in doubt.

      Delete
  14. Where's the thread about schools though ?

    I was waiting for an excellent point about the Robbins Report as it related to the subsequent performance (or otherwise) of Thanet Grammar Schools.

    John Holyer are you ex Chatham House ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 11:33am,

      I do not answer questions from those wearing burkas.

      Delete
  15. Wiki on Robbins Report

    I assume, commendably relevant anon commenter 11.33, you refer to the abject failure of Chatham House to produce the proportions of science and engineering undergraduates the country so desperately needed ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice try to sneak back in anonymously, Rick, after being deleted as LTP earlier, but who else but you would raise a nine year old report. CHS has science as its specialisation and, if you want engineers, bring back the old Technical Schools.

      Delete
  16. Maths not your strong point then 11.43.

    Boolean logic a bit of a mystery to you too ?

    But to go with your comment does CHS make a specialization of engineering science ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, science and maths last time I checked, but since these involve extra funds and involve an elaborate application process schools have to jump through hoops to get them. They cannot just randomly say they are going to specialise in something.

      Delete
  17. Oh Lord. So many ill-informed comments about education. A school's specialism means nothing. It doesn't mean that the school is particularly strong in that subject and it doesn't mean that they are weak. |t just means that they applied to become a specialist school in that area and jumped through a few hoops. You don't need to bring back technical schools. You just need to ensure that colleges are funded and incentivized to run engineering courses. Who should provide the money? The employers, of course. It is they who want appropriately qualified apprentices and so, it is they who should pay. Schools should stick to giving students a broad balanced basic education and equipping them with the skills they need to be successful in further education and the workplace. As for schools matching their academic profile to the needs of industry you would require a change of philosophy. For the last 30 years in all walks of life, the buzzword has been choice. Parents are encouraged to believe they have a choice of schools for their children and children are encouraged to believe they can choose their subjects at GCSE and A Level. Schools simply seek to cater for the demand. If you want to start limiting the numbers taking media studies or philosophy you will need to persuade people throughout the system that Thatcher's agenda of choice should be abandoned

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny but I thought we had thirteen years of Labour since Thatcher. Why didn't they change it if is such a good idea, NUT person?

      Delete
    2. If a broad based education had something to offer then why, since the beginning of mandatory state education, has the system failed to reverse the post industrial revolution decline ? We have a system that takes the child and for a decade tries to teach them nothing about everything. Then they proceed to further education which tries to teach them everything about nearly nothing. From too broad to too narrow in one hit for over 18s.

      If education leans too much to bespoke training for industry it becomes a form of grant aid. If it leans too much to academia it will be irrelevant to the strategic and economic needs of the Realm. So it should be a balance to achieve the optimum public interest.

      The weakness in your argument 7.22 is this. You suggest if employers want education to produce engineers they should pay for it ? But you fail to address the fact that they already have to pay taxes to fund the present "Broad based" system. So you must be happy for industry to pay for an education system they don't want ? And equally happy to base your argument on sustaining the imposition of an irrelevant education system upon the wealth creating sector who pay for it.





      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.