Would you send your child to a private school?

[il Duce McTarkin]

2 minutes ago, Morgan said:

Please clear your inbox, Tark.

 

👍

 

Well if you and jamesy would stop asking me out it woudn't be full of spam messages, would it. 🤬

[Morgan]

1 minute ago, il Duce McTarkin said:

 

Well if you and jamesy would stop asking me out it woudn't be full of spam messages, would it. 🤬

Is that a yes, or a no?

 

Meaning the inbox, not the date requests.

[il Duce McTarkin]

Just now, Morgan said:

Is that a yes, or a no?

 

Meaning the inbox, not the date requests.

 

It's clear, bud. 👍

[JudyJudyJudy]

33 minutes ago, il Duce McTarkin said:

 

Wilde was excellent at sounding interesting.

 

 

I meant on initial reading it sounds quite profound but then you ( well me 😂) read it again and it doesn’t make that much sense. It’s not like him , he was quite a wit . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, il Duce McTarkin said:

 

Well if you and jamesy would stop asking me out it woudn't be full of spam messages, would it. 🤬

Oh come on that’s how rumours start . There’s enough about me already 😎

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 minutes ago, Morgan said:

Is that a yes, or a no?

 

Meaning the inbox, not the date requests.

My inbox is full 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Is bumming at public schools still a thing? I assumed it had gone out of fashion like fingering in nightclubs 

[Morgan]

9 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

My inbox is full 

I think your box is usually full, James.  👍

[Morgan]

14 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Oh come on that’s how rumours start . There’s enough about me already 😎

He’s not your sort anyway.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

5 minutes ago, Morgan said:

I think your box is usually full, James.  👍

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Morgan said:

He’s not your sort anyway.

 

How no. ? He’s a man 😂

[doctor jambo]

One thing that gets overlooked in the debate is that in our society , those of us who are net contributors to the tax pot get a WORSE level of health care and education provision for our kids than we could otherwise afford  to provide a better level for those who do not chip in as much could afford.

Perhaps those that complain about inequality should look to pay more in taxation to improve the services they deem not good enough, as they are not even paying for what they get?

The funding issue is not due to under taxation of higher rate payers, but the huge number not paying anything in, yet expecting something more than they get?

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

9 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

One thing that gets overlooked in the debate is that in our society , those of us who are net contributors to the tax pot get a WORSE level of health care and education provision for our kids than we could otherwise afford  to provide a better level for those who do not chip in as much could afford.

Perhaps those that complain about inequality should look to pay more in taxation to improve the services they deem not good enough, as they are not even paying for what they get?

The funding issue is not due to under taxation of higher rate payers, but the huge number not paying anything in, yet expecting something more than they get?

 

Who are all of these people who are not paying in? People with low income, disability, kids, the elderly or just the unemployed? 

 

FWIW, I've no issue paying more tax if it delivers better services and improves the quality of life.I'm probably very low maintenance for the state but I don't grudge others who need access to services and support.

I  don't see why somebody should expect a poorer standard of education, health care etc than me just because they don't have my level of income. 

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

18 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

One thing that gets overlooked in the debate is that in our society , those of us who are net contributors to the tax pot get a WORSE level of health care and education provision for our kids than we could otherwise afford  to provide a better level for those who do not chip in as much could afford.

Perhaps those that complain about inequality should look to pay more in taxation to improve the services they deem not good enough, as they are not even paying for what they get?

The funding issue is not due to under taxation of higher rate payers, but the huge number not paying anything in, yet expecting something more than they get?

 

 

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

[doctor jambo]

3 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Who are all of these people who are not paying in? People with low income, disability, kids, the elderly or just the unemployed? 

 

FWIW, I've no issue paying more tax if it delivers better services and improves the quality of life.I'm probably very low maintenance for the state but I don't grudge others who need access to services and support.

I  don't see why somebody should expect a poorer standard of education, health care etc than me just because they don't have my level of income. 

 

its true though, the state provides a basic level of everything.

That standard is what you get for "free"

if you want better you can pay for it.

if you dont pay into the pot, you truly are getting it for nowt, so cannot really grumble if its shite

if you want a higher standard then you, and I mean everyone, has to pay in more.

there is a definite grudge held against those who are willing to work harder and pay over and above for better than the standard low service, which is plain daft.

you want a better home/holiday/car/trainers then you have to pay for it.

stop being envious of those who through their own endeavors can afford something you cannot.

What can you do to improve things, as opposed to ask others to do it for you?

I feel sometimes we have been infantilized by a controlling state. 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

3 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

its true though, the state provides a basic level of everything.

That standard is what you get for "free"

if you want better you can pay for it.

if you dont pay into the pot, you truly are getting it for nowt, so cannot really grumble if its shite

if you want a higher standard then you, and I mean everyone, has to pay in more.

there is a definite grudge held against those who are willing to work harder and pay over and above for better than the standard low service, which is plain daft.

you want a better home/holiday/car/trainers then you have to pay for it.

stop being envious of those who through their own endeavors can afford something you cannot.

What can you do to improve things, as opposed to ask others to do it for you?

I feel sometimes we have been infantilized by a controlling state. 

 

I dont think anybody has a lesser or greater right to education, healthcare or protection than me. No matter what they earn or tax they pay. 

I'm while im hardly minted, i do alright and never once felt anybody begrudged me that either. Nor do I begrudge anybody their more affluent lifestyle than me, particularly if they work for it. 

I know I haven't answered all of the points on your post but I think you get the thrust and I'm still interested who it is that you think doesn't deserve access to services, disabled, working poor or just the unemployed and wasters? 

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I dont think anybody has a lesser or greater right to education, healthcare or protection than me. No matter what they earn or tax they pay. 

I'm while im hardly minted, i do alright and never once felt anybody begrudged me that either. Nor do I begrudge anybody their more affluent lifestyle than me, particularly if they work for it. 

I know I haven't answered all of the points on your post but I think you get the thrust and I'm still interested who it is that you think doesn't deserve access to services, disabled, working poor or just the unemployed and wasters? 

nobody deserves to not access the services

however not everyone deserves to access "premium" services if you like

they can access them if they can afford it, otherwise you get the basic services the state can afford

there are some on here who think lumping taxes on private schools is the way to go- it really isn't

it just means kids leave private schools, the parents keep the money and the state system becomes even worse

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

nobody deserves to not access the services

however not everyone deserves to access "premium" services if you like

they can access them if they can afford it, otherwise you get the basic services the state can afford

there are some on here who think lumping taxes on private schools is the way to go- it really isn't

it just means kids leave private schools, the parents keep the money and the state system becomes even worse

I think we fundamentally disagree on that principle. I don't think a kid from the wrong side if the tracks should be denied the same level of education or healthcare as anybody else just because of their circumstances. Even if that is down to the poor life choices of their parents. That just perpetuates the cycle of poverty and increases  inequality. I'm no expert on these things but but I can't see how that benefits the state, socially or economically. Or does that not even matter? 

[i wish jj was my dad]

5 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Your entitled to a minimum level of care via the state. The state provide the minimum standard.
 

Some people choose a higher standard of service. Private health care, for example, is far superior to NHS, that not a dig at NHS just that acceptance what the state provide can be vastly improved on. Metrics also suggest the same for private education, transport, leisure services etc etc. 
 

Your attempt at equality seems to be about dragging others back to the minimum standard, the state provide.
 

I don't understand that if I'm honest, the state will never ever provide a service that is superior to private service.
People electing out of the state provision is actually benefecial as it allows more resources to those who need to rely on the state. 

 

Plus, the libetarian in me asks why shouldn't I be free to choose a better education or health system than the state provide? What harm am I or others doing to society? 
 

The state is not there to provide for us, that's on us, it's there as a safety net for those who can not provide for themselves. 
 

State services by their very nature, will never result in the best quality service. I accept that’s an uncomfortable truth. 

 

 

I don't see at any point where I've said I want standards reduced or that the state is there to provide for us. I do think that society benefits from its investment I'm the education, health and security of all it's citizens. Not just those that are lucky enough to be able afford it. 

I think when it comes to education we should always strive for excellence. It's an investment in the state's prosperity as well as the individuals who go through the system. Ditto health. Prevention is always better and generally a damn sight cheaper than cure I would have thought. 

Whether we can ever realistically achieve that is up for debate and if I am reading you right, you've set your stall out that there is no point in trying but the societal improvements and lifetime benefits for the generations that followed Beveridge are undeniable IMO and were probably inconceivable in 1939.  

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

The state is not there to provide for us, that's on us, it's there as a safety net for those who can not provide for themselves. 

Thats  where I sit . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

You stated, repeatedly, only the state should provide education and health and people shouldn't be able to ‘purchase’ a higher standard.
 

That results in a lowering standard for all 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

 

The state in the UK provide education, health care to all. Not just those who can afford it, so let’s not pretend poor people aren’t being givens access to the state ‘mandated’ standard, due to finances.

 

Some people, who can afford it, opt out the state provided system, as they believe they can do better,  that doesn't change the quality of the state service. If anything it improves it.
 

Why shouldn’t people be allowed to opt out? 
 

I haven't suggested anywhere that education or health shouldn't be improved or we shouldn’t try 😂😂😂. That'd you making shit up 🤣 I've said state provide service that are objectively poor (no one is claiming our schools or health services are well run, the Tories or snp have resulted in falling standard whatever way you look at it ) and the provision of private service actually improves the state provision. 

 

You believe health education and some other core services should be state provide only. Why? 

 

(I’m a little bit stoned and don’t have my glasses on so I hope the above makes sense 🤦)

 

The argument seems to be about what is a basic level the state should provide before it disincentives people ? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

maybe, I guess.
 

 I guess the state cater to the lowest common dominator. That’s not a standard I want to live to. 
 

I get the drive for equality but I don’t think that should be at the cost of the levels of service. You get rid of private provisions you put more pressure on state services with less per capita resources than previously that resulted in sub standard services. Getting rid of private service surely results in a deterioration of quality🤷🏻‍♂️

How’s that a better thing? 
 

This is random asf do you get drag kings? My daughters obsessed with that ru Paul drag race I just wondered if drag kings existed. (See previous posting for randomness) 

 

Anyway hope you and yours are good ✌🏻

Oh you must be having a good night 😂😂😂 yes they do exist I believe . It’s all very abstract 😎

[redjambo]

33 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

maybe, I guess.
 

 I guess the state cater to the lowest common dominator. That’s not a standard I want to live to. 
 

I get the drive for equality but I don’t think that should be at the cost of the levels of service. You get rid of private provisions you put more pressure on state services with less per capita resources than previously that resulted in sub standard services. Getting rid of private service surely results in a deterioration of quality🤷🏻‍♂️

How’s that a better thing? 
 

This is random asf do you get drag kings? My daughters obsessed with that ru Paul drag race I just wondered if drag kings existed. (See previous posting for randomness) 

 

Anyway hope you and yours are good ✌🏻

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_king

[JudyJudyJudy]

16 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_king

The great Dietrich defied gender stereotypes .
 

“ when a man dresses as a woman people laugh , when a woman dresses as a man no one laughs “  quite profound really 

[i wish jj was my dad]

11 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

You stated, repeatedly, only the state should provide education and health and people shouldn't be able to ‘purchase’ a higher standard.
 

That results in a lowering standard for all 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

 

The state in the UK provide education, health care to all. Not just those who can afford it, so let’s not pretend poor people aren’t being givens access to the state ‘mandated’ standard, due to finances.

 

Some people, who can afford it, opt out the state provided system, as they believe they can do better,  that doesn't change the quality of the state service. If anything it improves it.
 

Why shouldn’t people be allowed to opt out? 
 

I haven't suggested anywhere that education or health shouldn't be improved or we shouldn’t try 😂😂😂. That'd you making shit up 🤣 I've said state provide service that are objectively poor (no one is claiming our schools or health services are well run, the Tories or snp have resulted in falling standard whatever way you look at it ) and the provision of private service actually improves the state provision. 

 

You believe health education and some other core services should be state provide only. Why? 

 

(I’m a little bit stoned and don’t have my glasses on so I hope the above makes sense 🤦)

 

I don't think I've said people shouldn't be able to purchase education and i certainly dont believe it so im not sure where that came from. People can choose to do whatever they want to do with the money they earn. Not an issue. 

I don't think they should need to though because the state should put a premium on the education of our young people.  On the whole it's an investment which should pay dividends in the long run for society. I made the same point about healthcare. I see these things as preventative spend and explained why but you seem to have missed those points in my post. I'd include defence spending too. I'll try again without resorting to a twatty emoji because I think it is a worthwhile debate and you did say you were stoned and didn't have your glasses on. 

The reason I asked if that was what you were getting at is that you used words like 'basic' and 'safety net'. I don't see it that way at all and have tried to explain why.  

On all three of these issues i think we should be prepared to invest in the very best money can buy because the education, health and security of our population should be the priority of the state.  That governments of all shades waste taxpayers money is a given and some governments are less inclined to collect it in the first place but a just and stable society should recognise the benefits of prioritising education, health and defence. 

Back to education though. I know we disagree and my experience is different from yours but the kids I know both in Edinburgh and in Norfolk that have gone private have not benefitted from the experience and it certainly didnt help them learn how to conduct themselves so I'm sceptical about the benefits, particularly around life skills, albeit I'm prepared to accept that's not a well researched view. 

On your point about whether private education actually helps improve state standards, I have to say I don't know. I haven't thought or heard enough about the arguments but as with most things I'm open to persuasion. Floor is yours. 

 

 

[ri Alban]

23 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

One thing that gets overlooked in the debate is that in our society , those of us who are net contributors to the tax pot get a WORSE level of health care and education provision for our kids than we could otherwise afford  to provide a better level for those who do not chip in as much could afford.

Perhaps those that complain about inequality should look to pay more in taxation to improve the services they deem not good enough, as they are not even paying for what they get?

The funding issue is not due to under taxation of higher rate payers, but the huge number not paying anything in, yet expecting something more than they get?

 

So how did you become such a big asset to the country? Did you build your own roads, schools,  hospitals and security team. Or did you poncw of the taxation of others.

[i wish jj was my dad]

31 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

This is your post and you’ve repeated similar. So you dont believe people should be able to buy better🤷🏻‍♂️

 

You don’t think there is should be a need for private education or health care. I can understand that but it denies the reality of what the state provides and will provide. The state don’t and never will provide particularly high level of service. State provided services are secondary in quality to private services be it schools, health, leisure facilities and transport. Thats not to say you can’t improve the state provision but it will never be as good as quality of service. 
 

By your own admission you don’t know if private services result in improved services at state. It’s not a difficult thing to find out or even figure out. Yet doesn’t stop you arguing a point you haven investigated 😂😂
 

If we got rid of private health care tomorrow, how would the NHS be better off? How does getting rid of private provision improve state standards? 
 

Emotji aren’t twatty😂 they are used to convey emotion. They are entirely appropriate, especially when you post stuff that I find funny. Plus they clearly have the added benefit of triggering those of a certain age 😉

Being able to buy 'better' is my point. That's different from not being able to 'buy' . Similarly. I never said get rid. I said it shouldn't be needed, I said it shouldn't be necessary. I don't think that's complicated but not grasping the difference does back up the point on which we both seem to agree about the need to raise standards.  

Equally, I don't know how else to put it beyond believing that if the state made the choice to prioritise education and health we could have a world class service that would pay dividends in the long run as model of preventative spend. The example of introducing universal healthcare that was free at the point of need as an example of what can be achieved if there is a will to do it. That happened immediately after WW2 when the country was bankrupt, had to rebuild the damage from the Luftwaffe and move away from a wartime economy. 

I'm happy to look at the pros and cons and said I'm open to persuasion. I can do that and come back to it or I can be a sneering arsehole and we can trade insults but I suspect I would get quickly outgunned

[ri Alban]

14 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

Your entitled to a minimum level of care via the state. The state provide the minimum standard.
 

Some people choose a higher standard of service. Private health care, for example, is far superior to NHS, that not a dig at NHS just that acceptance what the state provide can be vastly improved on. Metrics also suggest the same for private education, transport, leisure services etc etc. 
 

Your attempt at equality seems to be about dragging others back to the minimum standard, the state provide.
 

I don't understand that if I'm honest, the state will never ever provide a service that is superior to private service.
People electing out of the state provision is actually benefecial as it allows more resources to those who need to rely on the state. 

 

Plus, the libetarian in me asks why shouldn't I be free to choose a better education or health system than the state provide? What harm am I or others doing to society? 
 

The state is not there to provide for us, that's on us, it's there as a safety net for those who can not provide for themselves. 
 

State services by their very nature, will never result in the best quality service. I accept that’s an uncomfortable truth. 

 

 

The money taking in by the state should pay for everyone to have a high standard of care and education.  Not pay filthy rich fecks, Bankers, Lords, Royals, Tory MPs. Usually feck who keep their profits to themselves and pass on their debts to us. 

 

Maybe we should have no tax and no state anything,  then we can just take everything off gimps like Mogg and Biris without any bother. No? 

Socialism is the capitalists safety policy. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

Shouldn't have been as nippy with my last post, BJ.  In a bad mood today but it was no excuse 

[ri Alban]

If folk were  paid properly,  maybe everyone could chose which system they'd like. If I had the money I wouldn't use the NHS,not because of the service, because I shouldn't be using it in the first place, its not for the people with wealth it's for the people who can't afford it. Folk like England's Royals, Rishi or Boris using the NHS is fecking criminal. 

 

And do give me the "?'They pay their taxes,  pish' WE pay our taxes cause we're supposed to be a civilised society. 

Edited January 20 by ri Alban

[PaddysBar]

I don’t think people are clued up on what private healthcare actually is. 
 

It doesn’t replace the NHS, it complements it. 
 

It doesn’t cover pregnancy, or any chronic conditions and there is a limit on the amount of care you can receive, typically an outpatient limit of £1,500 per year. 
 

Consultant fees alone will burn through that pretty quickly. 
 

If you have cancer, there’s a fair chance you’ll end up on the NHS anyway as they are better at treating it. 
 

Also, private hospitals can’t deal with emergencies. 
 

In addition, it’s likely pre-existing conditions are not covered, unless you pay top dollar. 
 

So yes, you’ll get seen a lot quicker if you’ve got a dodgy knee but to say private healthcare is superior to the NHS is way wide of the mark. 

[PaddysBar]

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I agree with this. 

 

However, the quality of private health care is superior when you compare like for like. You have less wait times, your environment is better and access to treatments NHS don't provide due to cost restrictions. You can also get private health care for things like pregnancy etc. It's just the coverage you pay for. 

 

That's not a dig at NHS. As you say private healthcare is designed to compliment the NHS.

 

A bit of a side my prediction is that health care becomes the boom industry in next decade as the gap between what state provides and people need widens. 

I deal with corporate private health plans (I.e company provided) and those don’t cover pregnancy) but maybe you can get an individual plan that does. I don’t deal with them. 
 

Definitely correct on waiting times, although part of me can’t ignore that waiting times would be shorter if NHS consultants didn’t do private work!

[il Duce McTarkin]

Folk that bang on about sending their kids to private schools have clearly got wee cocks. It's compounded by allusions to how clever or minted they are in their usernames. Might as well call themselves Doctor Weebaws or Lord Needledick, etc. Tell you what, chaps, you're probably wasting your time spunking all that cash sending your half-baked, slopey-heided bairns to fee paying schools. If they take after their mother they'll be inheriting shockingly poor judgement. Why don't you nip down to Harley Street instead and get a couple of inches stuck on your tadger and your floating rib removed. That way you can sook your own bellend in private instead of de-facto doing it with your shitposting on here.

[PaddysBar]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

As a matter of interest.
 

Do companies provide different level of cover to all employees. For example does the CEO get same package as some middle manager? 

 

It depends. Some do have different levels of underwriting, e.g. pre-existing conditions covered for execs, not for the plebs. 
 

It ain’t cheap, one of my clients pays over £800k a year for their policy, albeit that does cover around 800 employees plus dependants. Costs are also increasing about 30-40% as well due to NHS waiting times, increased claims and inflation. 
 

Putting the politics aside, it’s a fantastic benefit for employees but waiting times and nicer facilities aside, the NHS care is superior. 

Edited January 20 by PaddysBar

[doctor jambo]

17 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I think we fundamentally disagree on that principle. I don't think a kid from the wrong side if the tracks should be denied the same level of education or healthcare as anybody else just because of their circumstances. Even if that is down to the poor life choices of their parents. That just perpetuates the cycle of poverty and increases  inequality. I'm no expert on these things but but I can't see how that benefits the state, socially or economically. Or does that not even matter? 

The issue is not funding.

It is not buildings nor sport pitches or free laptops

It is not free meals.

Schools should go back to discipline , uniforms, teaching, 

Cut the rest of it out.

If a kid is not ready and disciplined for school, they shouldn’t be there.

We need schools for those kids, where they don’t harm the opportunities of the other kids.

the longer this experiment goes on the worse it gets

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

 

 

The issue is that’s not a realistic expectation. No matter how good the state provision is, it can be improved on. Plus the state does prioritise healthcare and education, it's continually amongst their top priority due to its importance. Doesn't stop it being objectively a poor service. 

Even if the govt produced a world leading standard, it could still be done better🤷🏻‍♂️Why shouldnt people be able have the option to go better or even just go different?  A lot of private education is actually about a different approach to teaching than the states view. 

 

The benefit of private provision is you take the burden away from the state freeing up resources. In a world where the state is producing record waiting lists for health in provision and declining standards, I struggle to see it as negative. 

Also I seriously question governments ability to deliver anything that is a world leading standard. Particulary in the UK and Scotland where despite record tax takes, public services are at their lowest ebb. I don't believe increased tax results in improving services, the evidence suggests not. 

 

Also at no points have we traded insults, I haven't called you a name or said anything personally about you. You thinking emothi constitute is some form of insult is 🤣🤣🤣. Albeit I see your subsequent post so 👍

 

Anyway, I'll call this quits. I understand you believe the state should provided the ‘best’ for all. However, that's not what happening or will happen. Therefore the reality is private provision massively benefit the state and all that use those services and dramatically improves the quality of service for those who can afford it. 

 

Anyway peace out ✌️

 

 

I dont disagree the state should provide a high standard of education or care. They don't though do they🤷‍♂️

 

Removing, private provisions certainly won't improve the current provision. 

 

 

I don't think that's a good idea but your fond of crazy ideas so you bash on 👍

 

You used to have a bit of humour about your diatribes, I miss those days 🥲

It should also be remembered that those who earn top Wages also pay hefty tax . It’s that which probably keeps much of the economy afloat ( and yes I know they squirrel some of it to other accounts etc) 

1 hour ago, PaddysBar said:

I deal with corporate private health plans (I.e company provided) and those don’t cover pregnancy) but maybe you can get an individual plan that does. I don’t deal with them. 
 

Definitely correct on waiting times, although part of me can’t ignore that waiting times would be shorter if NHS consultants didn’t do private work!

I went private few years back when I had a serious health issue . Was seen almost immediately but I felt the care was Just the same as the NHS . Nothing spectacular . Anyway I got seen paid a few then for the rest of the treatment got seen by the NHS 

[PaddysBar]

26 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

It should also be remembered that those who earn top Wages also pay hefty tax . It’s that which probably keeps much of the economy afloat ( and yes I know they squirrel some of it to other accounts etc) 

I went private few years back when I had a serious health issue . Was seen almost immediately but I felt the care was Just the same as the NHS . Nothing spectacular . Anyway I got seen paid a few then for the rest of the treatment got seen by the NHS 

Quite normal to start private then end up on the NHS. 
 

E.g. a private hospital will regularly refer cancer patients back to the NHS if they are best placed to treat it. 
 

Private Healthcare is really for things that need fixed, knees etc. but they don’t treat chronic, I.e. ongoing conditions. It’s there to treat conditions that will be cured in a short period of time. 
 

The NHS gets a hard time but it’s an unbelievably excellent healthcare provider. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

40 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

The issue is not funding.

It is not buildings nor sport pitches or free laptops

It is not free meals.

Schools should go back to discipline , uniforms, teaching, 

Cut the rest of it out.

If a kid is not ready and disciplined for school, they shouldn’t be there.

We need schools for those kids, where they don’t harm the opportunities of the other kids.

the longer this experiment goes on the worse it gets

With rights come responsibilities and I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.  I think you described a poor response from the school that affected your kids.  I had a different experience. Maybe I was lucky but I thought at the time that they were experienced in dealing with these situations.  They responded positively, encouraged constructive conversations and the problem was swiftly resolved.  At least for my daughter.  Probably not so much for the other kid. 

 

I do disagree about focusing solely on academia.  Schools are a great place to learn life and social skills so I wouldn't underestimate the value of thinking outside the classroom for personal development and pastoral support. 

[Spellczech]

2 hours ago, PaddysBar said:

I deal with corporate private health plans (I.e company provided) and those don’t cover pregnancy) but maybe you can get an individual plan that does. I don’t deal with them. 
 

Definitely correct on waiting times, although part of me can’t ignore that waiting times would be shorter if NHS consultants didn’t do private work!

It is worse than that though, as not only are the NHS consultants working up the road at the private hospital but the NHS is paying to send patients up the road to the same private hospital to get surgery from their own bloody employees at private rates because of the waiting times...it is bonkers.

 

Then add to that that the NHS picks up any complications that result from private operations and British people who pay to go aboard to Turkey or Eastern Europe for surgery including elective/cosmetic surgeries...

Edited January 20 by Spellczech

[AyrJambo]

1 hour ago, il Duce McTarkin said:

Folk that bang on about sending their kids to private schools have clearly got wee cocks. It's compounded by allusions to how clever or minted they are in their usernames. Might as well call themselves Doctor Weebaws or Lord Needledick, etc. Tell you what, chaps, you're probably wasting your time spunking all that cash sending your half-baked, slopey-heided bairns to fee paying schools. If they take after their mother they'll be inheriting shockingly poor judgement. Why don't you nip down to Harley Street instead and get a couple of inches stuck on your tadger and your floating rib removed. That way you can sook your own bellend in private instead of de-facto doing it with your shitposting on here.

🤣🤣🤣

[robroy1874]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

🤣
 

You ok, comrade. 

Think the chips on both his shoulders weighing him down

[Bret the Hitman Hearts]

I didn't go to one, but I wouldn't have any sort of moral objection to sending any future children of mine to one.

 

Having money allows you to buy better things in life. No point pretending otherwise. Would you pay for private healthcare if you could afford it, or wait forever on the NHS?

Edited January 20 by Bret the Hitman Hearts

[Greedy Jambo]

I dunno, i know 2 people that went 2 private school, they're both absolute losers. 

I would recommend a private nursery before school though, my daughter started school knowing more than some of the teachers.  

Top of her class all through primary school, and has won a couple of awards for art. 

Edited January 20 by Greedy Jambo

[ri Alban]

Where's Lord Bj went to. His posts have gone anaw.

[Greedy Jambo]

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Where's Lord Bj went to. His posts have gone anaw.

 

Can you not contribute with your own posts like?

[Kirky Jambo]

On 12/01/2024 at 13:13, moogsy said:

No chance, but I’m lucky enough to live in an area with a good state school.

 

If I lived in an area with a shite state school and somehow got the opportunity to send my kids private I’d bite your hand off. 

This is pretty much how I feel except the catchment isn’t as good so if money was no object I’d absolutely send my kids to private school.

 

It feels wrong to me that the system is the way it is, with the wealthiest having access to an exclusive education (private) and outside of that schools effectively dictating house prices and perpetuating the imbalance of the whole system. 
 

I’d do away with private schools altogether tbh but I don’t see a shake up any time soon.

 

I know the issue isn’t exclusive to eduction