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.
Options
Ruth Kelly's child at 'private school'
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6240165.stm
You couldn't script it!
The irony being, that state schools being so bad is partly her fault!
You couldn't script it!
The irony being, that state schools being so bad is partly her fault!
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
No mixing with the hoi polloi for these people, eh?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Hoi polloi"
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 about making her child abide by someone elses mistakes, very different.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Poor kid.
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.
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.
Oh yes, it turns out she did: Case closed.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.