General Chat

Rita: "William is it important for all children to go to University or attend Eton or Harrow or Rugby schools.?"

How 'bout you ask the people with the answers: the rich ones, who send their children to those schools and to university.

Surely it isn't important to do that.

And yet they all do ...

I guess they must just have more money than brains, those rich people!

Rita: "I dont moan about someone born with money it isnt their fault.but you seem to think it is not fair."

Nope.

But you do moan about people who want to improve their lot in life and not end up in lifelong debt for doing it.

Why, all these students who are facing that prospect, they should be happy with poverty and lots o' love, just like you were!

Talk about reverse snobbery.

It's okay for the born-rich to stay rich, but let anybody from a council estate want to do better, they must be smacked down and reminded of their place, is how it sounds to me.


And JoyBoroAngel's attack on academics ... well, it ain't the first time the real undercurrent has been seen on this board.

Again, it's that reverse snobbery. Poor is good, successful is bad.

And people with university educations have no common sense, and don't know any more than anybody else, and most especially aren't any better than anybody else. (Not that any of us with university educations would say we are, but we seem to get constantly reminded that we aren't, anyway.)


That's the real reverse snobbery I see, fueled quite obviously by jealousy.

Snobbery against people who aren't born rich, but manage to become successful.

Jealousy not of people who are born rich, but of people who manage to become successful.

Janey C
I don't get into arguements but am not happy with your remarks----

Quote---
'How 'bout you ask the people with the answers: the rich ones, who send their children to those schools and to university.
Surely it isn't important to do that.
And yet they all do ...
I guess they must just have more money than brains, those rich people!,'

You may wish to read my earlier post.

My husband and I are educated to uni standards, we consequently in our era had modestly well paid jobs ( not rich) and invested money for our childrens future, what's wrong with that ?
I wanted my children ,who did excellent at state school to further their education......what caring parent wouldn't.

We paid for our childrens tuition fees for Uni,so they wouldn't have the debt. But it would be a more difficult if the fees were the rate they are now intended to be.
They do have student loans, for living expenses which they have to repay.

I do not have more money than brains ..I wish..!

Goodnight.

Surely the point isn't whether you or I personally had a university education, or whether or not we personally saved for our children to do likewise.

The point is, to my mind, that a government which makes it harder for its citizens to be educated - particularly when they themselves have had the very best on offer - isn't acting responsibly.

Responsibility isn't all about saving a bit of cash here, another bit of cash there. It's about achieving a sensible balance between what you get in and what you pay out. To which the answer isn't always "pay out less", but "get in more".

Sue x

**$parkling $andie**, I have not the faintest idea what you are going on about.

I was responding to something said by Rita.

You may wish to read the thread, and read what I say as written, not as you wish it had been written.

You might also want to stop pretending not to recognize sarcasm used for humorous effect when it's in front of your nose.


By the way, I have two university degrees and a bit, which I paid for by scholarship, grant, loan and part-time work.


Just to be perfectly *honest*, **$parkling $andie**, we'll reproduce the ENTIRE post of mine you're referring to:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rita: "William is it important for all children to go to University or attend Eton or Harrow or Rugby schools.?"
[This means: Rita said: ...]

How 'bout you ask the people with the answers: the rich ones, who send their children to those schools and to university.

Surely it isn't important to do that.

And yet they all do ...

I guess they must just have more money than brains, those rich people!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

See? Rita suggested it wasn't important to go to particular schools, or to universities.

If it isn't important, why do people do it? How can those schools charge as much as they do for children to attend, if it isn't important?

Rich people send their children to expensive schools. But it isn't important ... so rich people must have more money than brains! Hahahaha, get it????



As for what you said in your post that you seem to think was relevant but wasn't:

"I think more parents should look ahead and do or have done that if you care for them and ensure they to run into as least debt as possible ."

I don't.

I think children and young people should not be dependent on their parents' good fortune or good planning or goodwill, to get an education.

I didn't get a dime from my parents. Well, a little pocket money occasionally, when I first went away to school. I was barely 17, and there weren't a lot of part-time jobs around in the late 60s. My parents had problems of their own, and I had no desire to be a burden on their bank account.


Education, all education, should be funded by taxes. Those who increase their earning power by getting post-secondary educations will pay it back in taxes over their lifetimes, if tax rates are appropriate for high earners.

Without a well-educated population, a society will decline and decay. A society needs people with university degrees, and lots of them, to progress in all ways imaginable.

Opportunities for everyone to achieve what they are capable of are good for a society. It's really pretty obvious.

We all know what governments promise and fail to deliver Sue,and I am not at all happy with their decision on the fees,gutted in fact.

I don't get into political arguements or any if I can avoid it,
however I was not happy with Janey's remarks about....

......surely it's not important to send your child to Uni.'

I think if they want to I would do all I could to get them there, hence my post.

Sandie.

Edit. 1.10am..Seems as if that was a remark made humerously !!

**$parkling $andie** -- I was editing my post to clarify it for you in case that was necessary.

I don't really care what you're happy or not happy about.

But you can stop, right this minute, pretending I said something I didn't.

You have now said this:

----------------------
......surely it's not important to send your child to Uni.'
----------------------

as if it was something I said.

I did not say it, and why you would even imagine that I would say such an utterly moronic thing, or think you could get away with pretending I did, is so far beyond me my head is spinning.


edit to respond to edit -- um, yeah.

Janey.
This is what I read
______________________________________________________
JaneyCanuck Request Review One Hour Ago

Rita: "William is it important for all children to go to University or attend Eton or Harrow or Rugby schools.?"

How 'bout you ask the people with the answers: the rich ones, who send their children to those schools and to university.

Surely it isn't important to do that.

And yet they all do ...

I guess they must just have more money than brains, those rich people!
________________________________________________________--

There are no inverted comas in the last 4 sentences, I presumed they were your words.(it wasn't clear that they weren't)

"surely it's not important to send your child to Uni.'" was an abbreviation rather than a C&P.

My sincere apologies to adresssing my comments to you as they weren't yours

..as you pointed out, and my reply should have been to the writer of those,

I hope they are looking in or read this later as it's now late and I'm about to close down and go to bed.

Regards
Sandie.

If anyone wants me to remove this thread as it continues to get personal, I will do if I'm around & look in.
.
Or I'm happy for anyone to RR the thread if I'm not around if they feel enough is enough. x

Leave it, please, Mildred, I don't contribute to the boards much and this is the most interesting thread in ages.

Gwynne

I agree with Gwynne. Leave the thread, it would be a shame to delete a good discussion.

Okaydokay xx

IN ANSWER TO JANEYS COMMENT

And JoyBoroAngel's attack on academics ... well, it ain't the first time the real undercurrent has been seen on this board.

Again, it's that reverse snobbery. Poor is good, successful is bad.

And people with university educations have no common sense, and don't know any more than anybody else, and most especially aren't any better than anybody else. (Not that any of us with university educations would say we are, but we seem to get constantly reminded that we aren't, anyway.)


That's the real reverse snobbery I see, fueled quite obviously by jealousy.

Snobbery against people who aren't born rich, but manage to become successful.

Jealousy not of people who are born rich, but of people who manage to become successful.

MY FAMILY ARE VERY COMFORTABLE THANK YOU
VERY MUCH and very much self made

An interesting article that may clarify a few things for those who are confused about what all the fuss is about.

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/the-retired-the-disabled-and-the-dead-the-real-winners-from-cleggs-fair-fee

It concludes -

Of course, all this talk of ‘fair fees’ ignores the true definition of what is fair and unfair. For a generation of university and school students, it is profoundly unfair that they are being asked to foot the bill for an economic crisis they did not create. It is profoundly unfair that a party that pledged to abolish fees and vote against any increase just seven months ago now sees fit to treble them. It is profoundly unfair that the cost of higher education is undoubtedly going to rise for the overwhelming majority of graduates without any improvement in the education they will receive.

No amount of statistical conjuring can make that unfairness fair.

Janey, going by your postings on various threads you disagree with everyone, you treat each and every one as a moron and nincompoop who dares to venture a different opinion to your own. You are fond of the word democracy, shame that you do not practise it, you do not appear to like debate/discussion. Our police are trying to keep order in difficult circumstances - that is democracy. Peaceful demos are fine - and are accepted. When violence creeps in we look to our police to protect us.

You accuse me of hatred towards you - in case you are not aware, hatred is an emotion. You flatter yourself - I do not feel any emotion towards you whatsoever. According to you, you are well educated, pity you did not put it to better use than backbiting etc. and laying down the law as seen by Janey. Not interested in you at all but object strongly to a foreigner endeavouring to interfere in our way of life here in the UK. I do not lay down the law as regards to Canada, kindly grant us the same courtesy.

VERY WELL SAID CHRIS x

I don't always agree with Janey but she has a perfect right to criticise our government and its policies, just as we have a right to criticise other countries.

Not living in China won't make me keep my mouth shut about the human rights abuses there. I'm also pretty worked up about the imminent execution of a Christian woman in Pakistan for blasphemy against Islam. I won't shut up about that either just because I don't happen to live there.

Gwynne

I do agree with you Guinivere, students were conned by the Lib Dems, that is for certain in order to get their vote, no dispute about that, and if the Lib Dems hadn't found themselves in government they would undoubtedly voted against the 'fees' all of which was hypocritical and very reprehensible! However, that still doesn't give anyone the right to make other peoples lives a misery, peaceful protest YES, lobbying your MP YES, never voting Liberal again YES, but terrifying other people whose fault it is not, causing mayhem and distruction NO, for no other reason apart from the obvious, than it does your cause an enormous amount of harm, a lot of the public who might have been sympathetic ,are now for certain NOT, and will tar ALL students with the same brush as yobbo's and trouble makers! although the majority of them are not. I think the few could have done their cause a lot of harm. I don't actually think that I have missed the point over 'Human Rights' as I understand it, our Canadian friend is suggesting that we in our Liberal societies should not concern ourselves with the Human Rights of people in other countries? I can only presume that it is perfectly OK and nothing to do with any of us more fortunate folk, if people are persecuted,so long as it's by their own countrymen? that being the case, the stoning to death of that unfortunate woman in Iran is none of our business, as is the gaoling of political prisoners, murders rapes, beheadings, all none of our business!! Well, thanks for that we all learn something new every day!

Our Canadian friend is saying the exact opposite, I believe.

However, she is being told she has no right to comment because she doesn't live here.

Edit - but not by me.

Gwynne

Well Gwynne,I do feel left out.lol

I've been aiming plenty of venom at some of these Daily Mail readers and none of my posts have been edited.lol

Regards
William Russell Jones.