Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Ray Palmer wrote: » Who dafuq is George? You talking to me? You are right I made a mistake ment Roger.
Ray Palmer wrote: » Who dafuq is George? You talking to me?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » You dont have an issue with taking funding away from private schools but in the same post you say that they cost the taxpayers less money than public schools? WTF??
blanch152 wrote: » Private schools cost the taxpayers less money than public schools, yes, but my objection is to them being subsidised at all. I have no issue with someone paying €7k to have their child educated privately, I just don't think the State should contribute in that case. If that means fees going up to €10k or €12k or more, sure some people will stop paying it and revert to the public system, but plenty of them will pay the higher fee, so I don't think the state will be down money. It only costs the State more money if every pupil in a private school subsequently transfers to a public school. I would guesstimate that if as few as 15% of pupils stay in private schools, then the State would be up money by abolishing the existing subsidy.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Really? Thats racist? In that case i'd be a 5th Dan. I abhor that stuff. You?
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Anyone else waiting on something?
Jasiah Hot Talker wrote: » Why? Anyone sending their child to a private school would pay quite a bit of tax into the public pot. Why shouldn’t their children avail of the tax that’s paid?
BattleCorp wrote: » Why would you shoot yourself in the foot and penalise private schools that are actually saving you money? .
KrustyUCC wrote: » “It is not fair to punish individual Traveller families, who are just trying to survive, for the failures of the State and general society overall.”
Ray Palmer wrote: » The reason you are confused is because you think it saves money when it doesn't. It costs public school funding because of economy of scales. It hoovers up funding and make public schools worse off. Less pupils in local schools restricts their access to facilities and teachers. It is going to be stopped but it should have happened sooner. Private school pupils don't really do that much better either anyway
punisher5112 wrote: » So basically let yourself onto any land or property and state you are a traveller. You now have the best chance of getting away with whatever you want. Amazing.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » the only word for that is bollix. they get the same grant per pupil as public schools. Economies of scale do not apply to schools.
Deebles McBeebles wrote: » Economy of scale doesn't apply to the topic of this thread. If it did child number 7 would cost us next to nothing.
Ray Palmer wrote: » What a muppet, economy of scale applies to everything. You are clueless on funding and resources. Try running a building for 500 pupils and only 100 pupils attending. Economy of scale doesn't apply right?
Ray Palmer wrote: » Yes it does, building a house costs so much and additional size is cheaper to build after the initial costs. Seriously you all think I am some liberal idiot commie but you lot are proving yourselves to have very poor comprehension and understanding on basic stuff.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Ray Palmer wrote: » What a muppet, economy of scale applies to everything. You are clueless on funding and resources. Try running a building for 500 pupils and only 100 pupils attending. Economy of scale doesn't apply right? So let me get his straight, you think the small number of private schools are causing public schools to lack pupils? Even if we ignore the bollixology of your ridiculous example this makes no sense. If you want a counter example how about a public school that is already at the limit of pupils in a class. Instead of sending their child to that school (which would require the hiring of an extra pupil for a very small increase in grant funding) the parents send little johnny to a private school. So as well as costing the state less the parents have also saved their local public school an expense.
BattleCorp wrote: » I don't understand your logic. You are advocating taking money from private schools that save the State money. So if you take money away from private schools, the State has to step in and spend more money. Can you not see that the private schools are actually providing a good service and benefiting the State. Why would you shoot yourself in the foot and penalise private schools that are actually saving you money? Can't say I agree with your guestimate either.
blanch152 wrote: » Given the standards by which you are judging what it is to be racist, can you tell me which of the following statements you agree with and which you believe to be racist? 1. The culture of criminality, misogyny and homophobia within the travelling community in Ireland should be condemned, particularly how it manifests itself in seeing young girls being taken out of school at 12/13, married off a few years later to close relatives, being turned into baby factories and occupying a disproportionate share of women's refuges (All of these are facts, backed up in census statistics and independent reports). 2. The culture of criminality within the Mafia community in Italy should be condemned. 3. The culture of misogyny within certain African tribes which sees young babies subject to FGM should be condemned. 4. The culture of misogyny and homophobia within certain Islamic societies and cultures should be condemned, particularly how it results in prosecutions for sodomy and adultery. 5. The culture of expansion of the state of Israel in order to oppress Palestinians should be condemned. You can just list 1-5 and whether you agree or disagree with the statements. It will help me classify where you fit in to the type of racist you are.
