Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is NOT a wind up, it is a simple technical question ( please read my initial post ) and despite the fact that I do not agree with everyone's opinion on this forum, I appreciate your views and wish to thank all of you for your valuable suggestions.

Thanks a lot !

I know parents, no names mentioned of course, who send their children to St Anthonys and do not have the slightest interest in the faith of the school, they simply want to get a good education for their kids, and like or lump it this is a very good local school. I am not a fan of religion and i'm not terribly keen on hypocritical people either, but once you are a parent you will realise that the rules of morality dont exist when confronted with sending your child to a decent local catholic school over a horridly under funded state school, it's just a fact of life, so BonnieParker, I would ignore what others say and just try and get your kids into this school, attend mass and do whatever it takes.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> but once you are a parent you will realise that

> the rules of morality dont exist when confronted

> with sending your child to a decent local catholic

> school over a horridly under funded state school,


I don't think you should even consider it immoral pulling the wool over the churches eyes to get your child into the school of your choice. Why should a significant percentage of local schools be unavailable to you as a parent just because you don't share the faith of the organisation that governs it?


Btw, I'm not anti church or anti faith, just anti faith groups running schools. Personally I think children should be taught about all the main faiths and allowed to choose any or none when old enough to make an intelligent choice ( dream on! ). This does not imply that they should be raised with no moral framework and allowed to run wild. A school is perfectly capable of imposing a strong moral framework without the help of the church.

From a sililar discussion on schools on this site:

A report commissioned by the Department of Education and Skills from the London School of Economics says that "religious affiliation of schools has little impact on their results. Church of England and Roman Catholic schools have fewer children from poor backgrounds and are more likely to be targeted by pushy parents.


The report focuses on the social intake and exam results of England?s 16,000 primary schools. ?There is clear positive selection of pupils into faith schools on the basis of observable characteristics that are favourable to education ? even when we compare pupils that originate in the same block of residential housing,? it says. ?Any performance impact from ?faith? schools in England seems to be closely linked to autonomous governance and admissions arrangements, and not to religious character.?


The report says that pupils in religious schools are more likely to be white, and to have English as their first language and less likely to come from a family on a low income.


The report found that voluntary aided schools (which are run by the church with public money) had some opportunity to covertly pick pupils based on what they could observe about pupils and their family background." Read the full report here (pdf) or on the Telegraph website


In this modern age when reasonable people are trying to bring cultures together to live in harmony, it's a shame that they still bring up children in schools dominated by unfounded superstitious beliefs which install into children an 'Us' and 'Them' attitude.

northerner Wrote:

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

> Louisa Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > but once you are a parent you will realise that

> > the rules of morality dont exist when

> confronted

> > with sending your child to a decent local

> catholic

> > school over a horridly under funded state

> school,

>

> I don't think you should even consider it immoral

> pulling the wool over the churches eyes to get

> your child into the school of your choice. Why

> should a significant percentage of local schools

> be unavailable to you as a parent just because you

> don't share the faith of the organisation that

> governs it?

>

> Btw, I'm not anti church or anti faith, just anti

> faith groups running schools. Personally I think

> children should be taught about all the main

> faiths and allowed to choose any or none when old

> enough to make an intelligent choice ( dream on!

> ). This does not imply that they should be raised

> with no moral framework and allowed to run wild.

> A school is perfectly capable of imposing a strong

> moral framework without the help of the church.


Word

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I know parents, no names mentioned of course, who

> send their children to St Anthonys and do not have

> the slightest interest in the faith of the school,

> they simply want to get a good education for their

> kids, and like or lump it this is a very good

> local school. I am not a fan of religion and i'm

> not terribly keen on hypocritical people either,

> but once you are a parent you will realise that

> the rules of morality dont exist when confronted

> with sending your child to a decent local catholic

> school over a horridly under funded state school,

> it's just a fact of life, so BonnieParker, I would

> ignore what others say and just try and get your

> kids into this school, attend mass and do whatever

> it takes.


Louise, I don't have a problem with the notion of non-Catholic children attending a Catholic school, but I'm sorry, I don't agree with pretending to be of a certain faith and attending mass purely to get into a school. I can appreciate the fact that many people have no time for religion or Catholicism in particular, but I know of many Catholics who would be offended at the idea of people who have no real interest faking an attempt to receive communion for example. That is a very sacred part of the faith and to do that is showing very little respect for the people who take their faith seriously.


I don't know the admission criteria of St Anthony's, but as far as I'm concerned, a faith school should have places open foremost to children of that faith, with the remaining places taken up by whoever would like to go there and who would meet the criteria of that school (faith aside).

Michael I appreciate your position here, but the Catholic church amongst other faiths isnt exactly prized on it's honesty and morality, so a non-faith parent sending their child to a school and pretending to be Catholic isnt an issue as far as I am concerned. No one is non the wiser, and the child is receiving a good quality education. It may seem a bit harsh, but if it works then do it, the second option of being honest and hoping you may get your non-faith child in if there is room,isnt really an option in my opinion.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Michael I appreciate your position here, but the

> Catholic church amongst other faiths isnt exactly

> prized on it's honesty and morality, so a

> non-faith parent sending their child to a school

> and pretending to be Catholic isnt an issue as far

> as I am concerned. No one is non the wiser, and

> the child is receiving a good quality education.

> It may seem a bit harsh, but if it works then do

> it, the second option of being honest and hoping

> you may get your non-faith child in if there is

> room,isnt really an option in my opinion.


Louisa, I personally don't mind people of any religion going to any school. Although I am Catholic myself, I would try send my kids to any school that would benefit them the most. At the end of the day, I will send my kids to church and teach them their faith at home and hopefully they will grow up well-adjusted people. If they later choose a different path spiritually, then I would let them, because ultimately they have freedom of choice


On the subject of the morality of the Catholic Church, I can't deny that there have been people within it that have been corrupt and immoral in one way or another, but like all things, there are two sides to any story. There are plenty of priests, nuns and just normal members of the church that have also done a lot of good in many ways in many communities around the world. For example, Mother Teresa is just one great example. For every crusader from the middle ages, corrupt pope or paedophile priest, there has been another who has done just as much good as harm.


Anyway, I am not trying to convert you, just merely saying that the "church" is an ambiguous term, similar to saying that all Muslims are violent thugs because some of the more extreme among them bomb innocent people for example.

The Catholic church is rich beyond belief. they should reject state funding for all their schools and thus can take whoever they want under whatever criteria they deem acceptable. When they however choose to take the local authorities shilling then they are fair game to anyone who needs to access public education.
  • Administrator

The previous post is why we posted the Keep threads on topic announcement "...if you want to chat with other users please feel free to do so but not when it's irrelevant to a thread...". This is a thread about Catholic Schools, dulwichmum's and all_star's comments before batdog's were fine, they were about Catholicism stemming from the discussion about Catholic Schools. Of course some threads do slightly go off topic and that's generally fine, but this is the sort of comment that would probably get removed, I hope you understand.


Anyway, back to Mother Teresa, who'd have thought? Just goes to show...

Beware the mythical reputation of Catholic schools.


I went to St Joseph's Academy, on Belmont Hill, in the seventies. It had a great reputation, built upon an allegedly fine past, but it had become truly dire. I was a nervous, shy kid and I was bullied and beaten - by the teachers and "christian brothers" who were supposed to be teaching me. The brothers each had their own cane or leather strap. One had a particularly fiendish 'tool', comprising a short cane stitched into a chrome leather cover - it gives me the shivers just to think about it.


This was a school my older, perhaps more robust brothers had been to, and the quality of education had plummeted, while its fine reputation lived on.


If you want a good education for your children, be honest and fairminded and remember that, if you do your job as a parent properly, they'll flourish in everything but the very worst establishment - their presence in an 'average' school might even help it a bit!

  • 9 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...