I would go further than that, I would bring in 24 months electronic tagging of new immigrants so they can be easily tracked, this would help kerb illegal immigration

 

Ridiculous... You're treating people like CRIMINALS here... This a criminal sanction, not a civil one... You're totally wrong on that one mate.... And I reckon that Liberty and Amnesty International would definitely have something to say about that.... No, sorry just cannot support that at all.... And Suedehead had a perfectly valid point tbh....

 

I think what should happen is that there should be a Common EU policy with regards to Asylum seekers from non-EU nations, there should perhaps be a "quota" system in which ALL EU countries take their proportional share... Of course, this would also depend on what second or third languages that said Asylum seekers could speak (if any), no point in sending an English speaker off to France, Spain or Germany is there....? Nor a Spanish or French speaker here or Poland... Many Asylum seekers also have pretty good work skills, there are a lot who are teachers, doctors, etc, who are being denied the opportunity to use their skills because of rules on working, so are forced to work in the "Grey" economy....

 

My 14 year-old daughter goes to a very good, strict, all-girls Catholic school in East London Scott. It gets excellent GCSE and A-level results and 2000 girls apply for 180 places every year. Why shouldn't Catholic girls and boys go to Catholic schools? She has to travel 40 minutes but doesn't mind as the alternative is a rough crap school 200 yards from us. It gets poor results and is rife with violence against teachers and drug-dealing. The cops have to be there every morning and tea-time to keep order. Why should she go there?

 

I've just laid out the reasons why.... Religious schooling leads to Sectarianism.... Look at Northern Ireland, and certain areas of Glasgow.... Look at certain areas of North London... I say that this school would get exactly the same results WITHOUT having a particular religioius or political dogma at its core....#

 

That school you're talking about is a problem because it's likely not getting the right level of support from the Govt....

My 14 year-old daughter goes to a very good, strict, all-girls Catholic school in East London Scott. It gets excellent GCSE and A-level results and 2000 girls apply for 180 places every year. Why shouldn't Catholic girls and boys go to Catholic schools? She has to travel 40 minutes but doesn't mind as the alternative is a rough crap school 200 yards from us. It gets poor results and is rife with violence against teachers and drug-dealing. The cops have to be there every morning and tea-time to keep order. Why should she go there?

She shouldn't go there, we should have fully comprehensive schooling...

You said that for my post last night, I'm expecting two replies tomorrow :P

 

This evening B) way too many distractions in the daytime lol to engage my brain in long replies, will reply to both tonight ^_^

I think the BNP has a following because 1) No other party will say they'll close the doors and allow no more immigrants in, of any colour. 2) Because whether gays like it or not there's still a lot of homophobia in this country and there always will be. 3) Like it or not, there's still lots of racism in Britain. So people agree with the BNP's stance on mainly these two points. I think it's as simple as that really. Think it's more the race/immigration issue than the gay issue though.

There is neither a LOT of homophobia nor a LOT of racism. 2007 YouGov poll - 90% of the British public supported outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. 10% is not a LOT. The only place where homophobia is still rife is in our schools...

 

Racism is far less prevalent than homophobia, so GOD knows how small it is - probably half a million to a million at the very most of our populace is still racist.

 

Funny how that last number seems to coincide quite well with the BNP voting statistics...I don't see them making much ground at all beyond their European 'success' (and let's face it, if all of the conditions are perfect for far-right development: recession, anger with the current government, perceived loss of identity - to get just two seats in the European parliament is pretty weak), especially as their actions will lead to further economic ruin.

She shouldn't go there, we should have fully comprehensive schooling...

 

 

Of course she should. She's bright and in all the top sets. All the girls in her primary class went there and all the boys to the equivalent Catholic boys school nearby. It's good to have Catholic schools. Why should she go to a crap comprehensive with dimwits in the class too who disrupt lessons and abuse teachers?

Edited October 28, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris

She shouldn't go there, we should have fully comprehensive schooling...

 

Says someone who was educated at a private boarding school ;)

I've just laid out the reasons why.... Religious schooling leads to Sectarianism.... Look at Northern Ireland, and certain areas of Glasgow.... Look at certain areas of North London... I say that this school would get exactly the same results WITHOUT having a particular religioius or political dogma at its core....#

 

That school you're talking about is a problem because it's likely not getting the right level of support from the Govt....

 

Exactly, religion should be banned in terms of schools be it jewish, catholic, islam or COE, religion should be left at the gates and all schools secular in their teaching and practices, I would also ban the wearing of religious clothing and items such as skullcaps, crucifixes, burkhas and so on, they can be worn at home, turbans is different I guess but religion should not belong in schools

Craig's post wasn't racist.. I dont happen to agree with it though, because I see plenty of racial and cultural mixing at universities and secular schools amongst the YOUNGER generations (it's harder for the older folks, who admittedly are more stuck in their ways...). Which is why I believe that schooling in this country needs to be 100% SECULAR and frankly, I would shut down every single Religious school in this country, whether it be Catholic, Muslim, Anglican, Jewish, Sikh, Bhuddist, or whatever.... THIS is what is causing the divisions within our country, THIS is what the problem is IMO, and THIS is actually where the potential solution lies, it's too late for the older generations, they've become stuck in their ways, the young are the future of this country, it's them that need to be targeted and freed from the oppressive atmosphere of Religious schoolings and strict religious upbringings... If people dont like the idea of secular and culturally mixed schooling, well, they are WELCOME TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY, and that applies to White, Christian people as much as Asian Muslims....

 

I get the impression that Nick Griffin would be as full of horror at my idea as Abu Hamza would... GOOD, I'm not out there to please the Christian Nazis and the Islamo-Fascists....

 

Thanks

 

Now I trust that is the end of the matter Danny and I politely request that you stop calling me out as a racist when I am NOT

Says someone who was educated at a private boarding school ;)

One which is entirely sui generis - and one recognised as being as such ;) Christ's Hospital is known for its charitable status...it's not perfect, but it does display the ideal for comprehensive education. People from all backgrounds being educated together, and the results prove it to be beneficial (and I can personally vouch that the teaching is patchy - some departments outstanding, others laughably weak). I believe it is one of the best schools in the country in terms of 'value added' which almost certainly has something to do with its comprehensive nature...

Of course she should. She's bright and in all the top sets. All the girls in her primary class went there and all the boys to the equivalent Catholic boys school nearby. It's good to have Catholic schools. Why should she go to a crap comprehensive with dimwits in the class too who disrupt lessons and abuse teachers?

Because that isn't a true comprehensive. TRUE comprehensive schooling has students from all backgrounds, not just those who are from deprived backgrounds...the following article sums up my view on the matter:

 

From North Carolina, a model of how to transform education

It's proven that schools will succeed if they are genuinely comprehensive

 

 

 

The chief executive of Tesco, Britain's largest private employer, has issued a warning: are kids dont no nuffink. Terry Leahy said this week that our educational standards are "woefully low", and that young recruits to Tesco often have to be taught basic literacy, numeracy and communication skills before they can be unleashed on the aisles or stockrooms.

 

He's not alone. This warning rumbles across the country. A friend of mine is an academic at a middle-ranking university, and she recently showed me some of her students' essays. "It's quite normal for them not to know how to use paragraphs, or commas, or to be able to spell," she said, shaking her head. Some are barely literate, despite a clutch of A-levels. She found the same at two other universities.

 

It's not enough to glibly announce that there's no problem, as the Government did this week. Yes, a Chicken Little cry that educational standards are plummeting echoes across every age: one of the oldest tablets ever discovered in an archaeological dig warns that the kids of today aren't what they use to be. Yes, there are still a lot of good schools. Yet there are more children getting into Oxbridge every year from the pool of 300 kids at Eton than from the 300,000 kids on free school meals. Either you believe those Etonians are born smarter – an absurd proposition – or our school system is failing poor children on a vast scale. How many great minds are we allowing to atrophy just because they weren't born to wealth?

 

It doesn't have to be like this. A far better system is possible; we just need to follow the evidence. And the road-map runs through – of all places – North Carolina. Something extraordinary has been happening in the state's schools over the past few decades, and the best guide to this experiment is an important new book by Professor Gerald Grant called Hope and Despair in the American City: Why There Are No Bad Schools in Raleigh.

 

He looks at two very similar cities – Syracuse in New York State, and Raleigh in North Carolina. They are both 1950s boomtowns turned to 1980s ghost towns. It's the same-old, sad-old story: industry shrivelled and the white middle classes stampeded to the suburbs, leaving behind shell-cities scarred by poverty. Yet there is today an extraordinary gap between these cities. In Syracuse, only 25 per cent of 12-year-olds can read, write or do arithmetic to the appropriate basic level – while in Raleigh, it is 91 per cent. Almost all of the schools in Syracuse fail; none of the schools in Raleigh do. What are they doing differently?

 

Raleigh's governors decided to do something bold and unconventional: they looked to the scientific evidence. In 1966, Professor James Coleman was commissioned by the White House to conduct the largest study, to that time, of what makes good pupils succeed and bad pupils fail. After years of on-the-ground analysis, he came up with something nobody expected. He found that the single biggest factor determining whether you do well at school or not isn't your parents, your teachers, your school buildings or your genes. It was, overwhelmingly, the other kids sitting in the classroom with you. If a critical mass of them are demotivated, pissed off and disobedient, you won't learn much. But if a critical mass of them are hard-working, keen and stick to the rules, you will probably learn. Watch any 10-year-old: they are little machines for snuffling out the sensitivities of their peer group, and conforming to them.

 

Facing their schools' failure in the 1980s, the Raleigh school board returned to this evidence and tried to puzzle out: how should it change the way we run our schools? Touring the schools, they could see why the research was right. Children from poor families need more help than kids from rich families. They are more likely to have chaotic home lives, less likely to have the importance of education drilled into them from birth, and they have lower expectations for themselves.

 

In small numbers, in an ordered environment, these poor children can quickly be brought up to the level of the rest, and indeed exceed them in many cases. But when they form the majority of a school's pupils, the teachers can't cope, discipline breaks down, and learning stops. A school for poor children soon becomes a poor school.

 

So they formulated a bold – and strikingly simple – solution. They wouldn't allow any school, by law, to have more than 40 per cent of its children on free school meals, or more than 25 per cent of children who were a grade below their expected level in reading or maths. Suddenly, the children who needed the most help wouldn't be lumped together where their problems would become insurmountable; they would be broken up and fanned out across the educational system. Raleigh merged its school system with white suburban Wake County, so they became one entity, sharing pupils. In order to soothe suburban suspicion at this change, Raleigh turned a third of its inner-city schools into specialist academies, offering excellent music or drama or language specialisms. Soon, children were bussing in both directions every morning, in and out of the suburbs.

 

Many conservatives savaged the plan as "social engineering" and said it was doomed to fail. Some parents were angry, and a few decamped for the private school system – until the results came in. Within a decade, Raleigh went from one of the worst-performing districts in America to one of the best. The test scores of poor kids doubled, while those of wealthier children also saw a slight increase. Teenage pregnancies, crime and high school drop-out rates fell substantially.

 

It's not hard to see why. Each school had a core majority who respected the rules and valued education – and the other kids normalised to their standards. Those who found it tough could now be given special attention, because they weren't any longer surrounded by a mass of equally troubled kids. Today, 94 per cent of parents in Raleigh say they are happy with their child's education. School boards supporting this integration keep getting re-elected.

 

Raleigh succeeded because it built genuinely comprehensive schools: in which rich, middle-class and poor kids learned together. In Britain, we tell ourselves we have built "comprehensives" – but, except in a few enclaves, we have done nothing of the sort.

 

We allocate school places according to how close you live to a school. This immediately creates a social apartheid where middle-class children have successful schools in leafy suburbs, while poorer children are ring-fenced in sink schools and end up at Tesco at 16 with few useable skills. (Rich children are creamed off entirely into private schools.) Comprehensivisation didn't fail; it didn't happen.

 

There are only a few areas in Britain with genuinely mixed schools, like Grampian – and they get the best overall results. At the opposite end of the spectrum is Kent, where children from the middle and the rich are creamed off into grammar schools where just 1 percent of kids are on free school meals. They have the worst overall results in the country.

 

So we know how to make schools work: integrate them. Occasionally, our politicians take a tiny step that brings us closer to this. The Labour council in Brighton allocates school places by lottery; the Tories say they will abandon catchment areas, letting a few poor kids slip through. But both only tinker at the extreme social segregation that crowbars apart the educational system. All sorts of policies pull in the opposite direction, like the outrageous tax breaks given to private schools, the expensive uniforms and “voluntary fees” of many good schools, or the covert social selection now widespread across the system, especially in faith schools.

 

Integration is a good policy for bleak recession times since it delivers dramatic improvements at little extra cost. Raleigh actually spends less than the US national average on its schools, and 25 per cent less per pupil than failing Syracuse. In the long term, integration actually saves us a fortune in welfare payments and prevented crime.

 

Yes, the right will scream at first that it is "an attack on the middle class". In fact, it is a great compliment to the middle class: it wants to use their children and their values as the sun around which every child's education revolves. Yes, some parents will scream that they don't want their kids being taught alongside "chavs" and "pikeys". This should be called out bluntly – it is bigotry.

 

A democracy is based on a bargain: every child gets a chance to succeed, whatever their background. Today, we are breaking our deal. We are leaving millions of children to fail, just because their parents didn't have money. Do we want to be a country where our children are sorted at five into different playgrounds according to Daddy's bank account? Do we want to be an place where rich children only glimpse poor children from the car window as they are driven to their better, plusher school, and their better, plusher lives? Or do we want something better for our kids?

 

Our politicians insist that "we're all in this together". This will only be true if – at last, and at least – our children go to school together.

Thanks

 

Now I trust that is the end of the matter Danny and I politely request that you stop calling me out as a racist when I am NOT

 

I'll stop calling you racist when you stop calling white Britons "indigenous" and when you stop saying ethnic minorities "stick to their own kind" (it was the phrasing more than the actual statement that was disgusting there).

Because that isn't a true comprehensive. TRUE comprehensive schooling has students from all backgrounds, not just those who are from deprived backgrounds...the following article sums up my view on the matter:

 

 

The rough comprehensive near us has teenagers from all backgrounds and abilities though but the ones who aren't interested in learning muck about and disrupt lessons for all the others!!

I would bring the school leaving age down to 13 on condition that those that leave school at 13 learn a trade at a technical college, that way instead of bored kids mucking around and non bright ones holding the bright ones back they could be learning motor mechanics or carpentry or some other trade full time that will benefit them and at the same time those that want to get GCSE's and progress are not held back by teachers spending the lesson bringing chavs into line

The rough comprehensive near us has teenagers from all backgrounds and abilities though but the ones who aren't interested in learning muck about and disrupt lessons for all the others!!

You didn't read the article I posted, which expressly dealt with this point...

I'll stop calling you racist when you stop calling white Britons "indigenous" and when you stop saying ethnic minorities "stick to their own kind" (it was the phrasing more than the actual statement that was disgusting there).

 

Like I said my posts including the wording have been read and considered acceptable by both forum mods from here and from 2 GM's if you are not satisfied with that report my posts to admin

I'll stop calling you racist when you stop calling white Britons "indigenous"

 

oh and just what are we then?..... i think that after a thousand years plus most of us can refer to ourselves as 'indiginous'...

You are nit picking Suedehead, you are talking about stuff from WW2 with genocide and millions of people being massacred, can you name a country with close proximity to Europe where anything like that is going on ? you are comparing apples with oranges mate, using genocide and ethnic extermination in mainland Europe is a very poor example not to mention the European treaty of Rome that we signed for allows for full freedom of movement and labour within EU countries

 

If say Pakistan invaded India and millions were dying etc then the situation would have to be looked at with regards changing provisions but that is not happening, a mass movement of non EU refugees for war reasons is not on the cards

 

I am a bit tipsy so ewill reply to your long post tomorrow Tyron

Which country has taken the highest number of asylum seekers in recent years? The answer is Iran, mostly from Iraq.

 

The UK doesn't even take the highest number of asylum seekers in Europe and Europe as a whole only takes in a tiny percentage of all asylum seekers. One of the other posters (I think it was Scott but I may be wrong) said there should be a common EU policy on asylum. He's absolutely right. It is one of the issues where an EU-wide policy makes perfect sense.

Which country has taken the highest number of asylum seekers in recent years? The answer is Iran, mostly from Iraq.

 

The UK doesn't even take the highest number of asylum seekers in Europe and Europe as a whole only takes in a tiny percentage of all asylum seekers. One of the other posters (I think it was Scott but I may be wrong) said there should be a common EU policy on asylum. He's absolutely right. It is one of the issues where an EU-wide policy makes perfect sense.

 

The proportion using Scott's idea should be dictated by landmass, France is a vastly bigger country than us for example with landmass so it is only right they should take 3 times as many as us if its size is 3 times that of ours, we are a tiny extremely overcrowded island, there are over 60m here now and the infrastructure and roads etc can't cope now let alone in a decade where it will be something like 67m

 

If we were a much larger country I would not be as bothered about the immigration crisis as I am now with a country that is in over capacity mode

Which country has taken the highest number of asylum seekers in recent years? The answer is Iran, mostly from Iraq.

 

The UK doesn't even take the highest number of asylum seekers in Europe and Europe as a whole only takes in a tiny percentage of all asylum seekers. One of the other posters (I think it was Scott but I may be wrong) said there should be a common EU policy on asylum. He's absolutely right. It is one of the issues where an EU-wide policy makes perfect sense.

 

...but we are the smallestcountry, i suspect that if the percentage of migrants was timesed by the square mileage , the uk would be the most densely populated.