Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Ruth Kelly's child at 'private school'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6240165.stm

:lol: You couldn't script it!

The irony being, that state schools being so bad is partly her fault!
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It proves why the state sector will never be any good, though, as the rich and powerful have no desire to make it better because they can afford to send their darling children to the private school.

    No mixing with the hoi polloi for these people, eh?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I couldn't really give a shit what SEN her child has (my sister in law has SEN and will probably fail all her GCSEs because they are not being met), it proves that when the crunch happens the rich and powerful will fork out so that their precious child will get help rather than doing their job properly and making sure all our children will get help. Anyone would think it was deliberate.

    There are no legitimate reasons for her doing it. She fucked up the schools but rather than live by her incompetence she forks out the money and saves her kid from the shit. My family still suffers, but she clearly couldn't give a monkeys about that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    In terms of this particular child and his/her specific educational needs, what do you think she should have done?

    I don't think that its relevant to put aside her responsibility for schooling (not just as education secretary but as a member of the ruling party of this country), because her decisions have created the scenario where her child may not be having their SEN met.

    If she had no responsibility for the mess then she should do the best for her child, but it is not appropriate or right for her to create a complete mess and then not make her family live by her incompetence. Especially given that we all have to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm with Sophia on this one, she and previous education secretaries have fucked up, yes I agree with that. BUT I'm glad she's not sacrificing her childs education on the altar of her principles.

    No one's pointed out the angle that we should be glad she's done it as she's taken what seems to be a rescource needy child out of the state system thus freeing up it's limited resources for other peoples children who don't have the option of private school.

    It's up to her what she spends her money on, attack her for her incompetance, which she has just fessed up to by demonstrating she doesn't think the state system is capable in this case, but don't attack her efforts to do best by her kids.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    I agree. We should only be talking about her competence (or lack thereof) at her job, and not talking at all about what school she's sent her child to because quite frankly it's nobody's business but hers.

    I would normally agree, but when it comes to a member of the ruling party, I think it is our business.

    I find it disgraceful that she forces everyone else in this country to put up with something that isn't good enough for her own child. If it isn't good enough for hers then why is it good enough for ours?

    It proves that the thing holding the state education system back the most is that the ruling party are not forced to use it. If they don't use it they have no stake in it, and if they have no stake in it then they clearly don't care if it goes arse over tit. Kelly clearly doesn't care that it's gone arse over tit because of her and her party- she gets to send her child to a private school (at my expense, I should add) and everyone's happy.

    I don't think she should let an unsatisfactory situation rest, but to be quite honest she should be doing what the rest of us have to and getting the education system to sort it out. But because she makes a huge wedge of cash at our expense she doesn't have to let the education system sort it out, she can just buy her child out of the mess. So long as its us in the shit and not her it's seemingly acceptable.

    It's not about "sacrificing children for principles", its about making her abide by her mistakes and lump it just like we fucking well have to. As it stands my family get shat on by the education system (as previously explained) but she gets to fuck up the education system and magically avoid any of the repercussions. It's just us that have to live with it whilst her kid gets magically whisked off to the top school. I think that is morally repugnant- she fucked it up, she can live by it. Just like I have to- and I didn't even get a say on how to run it properly.

    In the meantime, though, my family gets repeatedly failed by the system because the people running it couldn't give a monkeys.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It proves why the state sector will never be any good, though, as the rich and powerful have no desire to make it better because they can afford to send their darling children to the private school.

    No mixing with the hoi polloi for these people, eh?

    "Hoi polloi" :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So Kermit, you fuck up in something to do with your job, that to be completely honest isn't entirely your fault as when you took over your job it was a complete mess and you can only change so much so fast with a limited budget. If you had the option would you do the best by your family, or stuff what's the best thing you can do for them, and leave them there because it's your cock up so they should suffer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I don't think she should let an unsatisfactory situation rest, but to be quite honest she should be doing what the rest of us have to and getting the education system to sort it out. But because she makes a huge wedge of cash at our expense she doesn't have to let the education system sort it out, she can just buy her child out of the mess. So long as its us in the shit and not her it's seemingly acceptable.

    So because her salary is paid by our taxes, we should be able to dictate what she spends her money on? Fancy extending that to anyone that gets paid through legal aid, all civil servants, and all those who work for the NHS?
    It's not about "sacrificing children for principles", its about making her abide by her mistakes and lump it just like we fucking well have to.

    It's about making her child abide by someone elses mistakes, very different.
    As it stands my family get shat on by the education system (as previously explained) but she gets to fuck up the education system and magically avoid any of the repercussions. It's just us that have to live with it whilst her kid gets magically whisked off to the top school. I think that is morally repugnant- she fucked it up, she can live by it. Just like I have to- and I didn't even get a say on how to run it properly.

    You've got a vote, you get a certain amount of say, you can become a school governor and get even more say in education at a certain school. It's not magic, it's money, the same as everything else in a capatalist society, if you can pay you get the choice, be it the type of food you eat or the education your child gets.
    In the meantime, though, my family gets repeatedly failed by the system because the people running it couldn't give a monkeys.

    Diddums, want some help grinding that axe or are you ok by yourself?

    As you find out more about the story, you'll find that the decision to move her child was made in conjunction with the state system and the local education authority.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's about making her child abide by someone elses mistakes, very different.

    No, its not. It's about making her and her family abide by the mistakes of her and her family.

    It isn't even about who pays her. She is one of the rulers of this country by the nature of her job- I think the bare minimum that is required is that they live the way that they impose on the rest of us.
    Diddums, want some help grinding that axe or are you ok by yourself?

    How charming of you.

    That'd explain the justification of her abhorrent actions though. Who gives a fuck so long as the woman responsible for the fuck up gets to keep her family safe from the repercussions! Perhaps if she'd made a slightly better fist at running the country, and if the ruling party that she's a member of had made a slightly better fist at running the country, she'd not be in this position.

    I fail to see why its so unreasonable to ask that the people who run the country live the way that they impose on the people they rule.

    To answer the other questions- most people's families suffer from the errors of parents. If a parent borrows too big a mortgage the house gets repo'd, if a parent is incompetent at their job then they get sacked and have a crap Christmas. My issue with this is that she can make an utter pigs ear of it all and then magically avoid the repercussions of it- reprecussions that she forces on the rest of the country. If she forces it on me then she should at least have the fucking decency to abide by it too.

    As for the vote, don't make me laugh. I never voted for her and her ruling party, and never ever will, but I still get shafted by them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Her family haven't made any mistakes. She may have done, that doesn't mean her family have, unless you've decided to start tarring whole familes because of the actions of one member.

    We're never going agree on this, because you want to be able to dictate the lives of politicians and their families and I don't agree with that.

    Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, but she is in this position and has to make the best job of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is no way in hell I think she should have to lead by example with her child's education if it is not in the best educational interests of said child. It must be a cold day in hell because I think David Cameron's attitude to the whole thing is right on.

    Poor kid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We're never going agree on this, because you want to be able to dictate the lives of politicians and their families and I don't agree with that.

    I want them to live with the consequences of their behaviour. It's not even "leading by example", its the most basic form of accountability.

    As it is, they don't have to, but we do. Which is nothing short of a fucking disgrace. Her darling child gets all the help it needs, which is great, but what about OUR children? They quite clearly don't matter otherwise Kelly would be doing her job as ruler properly and getting our schools sorted out too.

    Why should politicians impose decisions on our children and our families whilst leaving no stone unturned to make sure that their children don't have to live with the consequences of those decisions. It just proves that they're all robbing lying hypocritical cunts, I suppose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm, didn't the LEA decide that her child would be better off in a private school with better facilities? Y'know, like they do with other kids where appropriate? And incidentally, isn't Ruth Kelly therefore entitled to have this funded by the LEA, but instead opted to pay for it herself because she could afford it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It stinks of NewLabour hypocrisy, there's nothing more to say.

    And this Government's utter incompetence at dealing with children with SEN is something of a sore point with me without this as well. She's a clueless hyopcrite, but she's got plenty of company at Westminster.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Answer my questions. Did she go through the procedure that her government says that any other child in that situation should do? And did she then offer to pay the fees herself when she was completely entitled to state funding?

    Oh yes, it turns out she did:
    BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson was told by a friend of Mrs Kelly that although the decision was taken with the "full co-operation" of the local authority Mrs Kelly had not wanted the local education authority to pay the private school fees.
    Case closed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've read the BBC article, and it reads like more NewLabour spin. Words like "professional advice" and "consultation with LEA" have been bandied about quite liberally, but I don't think that that magically removes the hypocrisy of the whole situation. I'm sure the LEA is loving her decision, though, as its one less kid with SEN to have to do something about.

    I'm sure she does want to do the best for her son, but what about everyone else's sons and daughters? She failed them as education secretary, and she is continuing to fail them as an important member of the ruling party of this country. She is in charge and doesn't raise one fucking finger for our children, yet she suddenly leaves no stone unturned when its her own. That is where the hypocrisy and the cheating is.

    What all this is about is Ruth Kelly shafting the children of this country through her incompetence, corruption (the whole party she belongs to is corrupt and proven to be so) and ineptitude, and then backpedalling madly the second her own darling child is to be affected by her decisions. Of course she still does precisely fuck all to help our children, though, but then she's a politician so its to be expected.

    If its good enough for my kid then its fucking well good enough for hers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She's entitled to make the same decision about her childs education as anyone else is.

    A family with a similar background to hers aren't forced to use the state system, why should she be. The state system recognises it's limitation and funds or part funds private places where appropriate, she could fight for that or she could pay herself. I guess you'd rather she fought the LEA to get it funded by them rather than her paying, because who wins then? Your short sighted principles.

    Can't you be glad there's one less drain on the limited resources?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't you be glad there's one less drain on the limited resources?

    The limited resources are her fault.
    The state of the school is her fault.

    It isn't about political principles, its about the principle that the people who rule should have to live as the people that they rule. That's where the hypocrisy is- she forces on us something that she won't have for herself, and then charges us a fortune for it.

    I am vehemently against private schooling, always have been and always will be, but I'd still send my kid to a private school. That's not the hypocrisy that upsets me.

    The hypocrisy is that she shafts us and our kids whilst ensuring that her kids are made for life.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The limited resources are her fault.
    The state of the school is her fault.

    It isn't about political principles, its about the principle that the people who rule should have to live as the people that they rule. That's where the hypocrisy is- she forces on us something that she won't have for herself, and then charges us a fortune for it.

    She does have it for herself though, for her other children. The limited resources are a result of limited funding, we could always up taxes though to get more resources, but you'd complain then too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She does have it for herself though, for her other children. The limited resources are a result of limited funding, we could always up taxes though to get more resources, but you'd complain then too.

    There is more than enough to go around, the Government (which Kelly is a member of) chooses to line its own pockets instead.

    Which, amusingly enough, is why Ms Kelly can afford to send her kids to private school.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess you'd rather she fought the LEA to get it funded by them rather than her paying, because who wins then?
    Exactly. I know exactly how much outrage you would display if she'd used the rules to get the LEA funding for private education that he child is entitled to. She can't win either way. I couldn't give a shit about her record as a politician, because in this instance, she's done nothing wrong. Or at least you have no evidence that she has done anything wrong, and are using it as an excuse to jump to conclusions as usual.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Although if you compare MPs income to private sector equivalent roles their pay isn't that hot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course she hasn't done anything "wrong", she's using her legally-obtained salary to send her child to a legally-sanctioned private school. There's no conclusions to jump to, she's worked completely within the law. She's done nowt "wrong".

    She has proven just how little the politicians who rule this country care about the people of this country, though. As a direct result of her actions the education system in this country is shocking, and rather than work to solve the mess she made, she simply pulls her child out of the shit. Just leaving the rest of us there, wallowing around in it. But why should she care, her son's well out of it, so she's alright, Jack.

    She's proven that, when push comes to shove, all politicans are the same- the only people they give a toss about are themselves.

    MPs incomes are higher than the equivalent private sector, much as they try and claim otherwise. You won't get an unqualified numpty earning £70,000 a year in private business.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Of course she hasn't done anything "wrong", she's using her legally-obtained salary to send her child to a legally-sanctioned private school. There's no conclusions to jump to, she's worked completely within the law. She's done nowt "wrong".
    No, by all accounts she's took the advice of the LEA to send her child to private school, and she's offered to pay the fees herself. But you have jumped to the conclusion that she has decided that the education service the government offers isn't good enough, and so is sending her child to private school instead. None of us have all the facts, but you're just believing what you want to believe.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People are allowed to form their own judgements - for the first page or so this thread seemed to show people debating an issue they disagreed on. I don't think there's any need for people to start to post replies with a more attacking edge. I don't see any difference between Kermit interpreting what he reads his way, and I'm With Stupid interpreting it their way - so I don't see why it's necessary to bring in an aggressive tone.

    And that goes for everyone here, the point here is exactly to debate issues people disagree on - it doesn't mean comments like 'an axe to grind' need to be used as attacks just because someone doesn't see something your way.
Sign In or Register to comment.