East Dulwich Police Station

[LadyDeliah]

Meg1001 Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

>

> >

> > Well, yes, but the theory is that private

> > enterprise efficiencies can do the job at less

> > cost to the taxpayer and still turn a profit

> for

> > the companies involved.

> >

> > As an extreme example, the government could set

> up

> > a factory and make its own photocopiers. Or it

> > can buy them cheaper from Xerox, save the

> > taxpayers money and the company still make a

> > healthy profit.

>

>

> Will let Electricity/Gas/Water/Rail/Private

> Landlords know...

What's nonsensical about this? It's clear the privatised industries haven't reduced costs to the consumer. They have all used their monopolies to fleece us whilst still getting subsidies from the tax payer.

[LadyDeliah]

???? Wrote:

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

> will let former citizens of the Soviet Union, it's

> ex-sattelites, and the people of North Korea

> know......

And this is just inane. What does the Soviet Union have to do with private corporations profiting from tax payers? There are more options than rampant corporate greed or stalinist, centrally controlled economies quids.

[LadyDeliah]

motorbird83 Wrote:

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

> Without waying into the broader debate, its

> important to clairfy that charities are not

> businesses. They do not make profits for their

> owner. To the extent that revenue is higher than

> expenses, the surplus has to be reinvested into

> the charity to further its aims. By law,

> surpluses cannot be distributed to those that

> manage or established the charity.

Except by way of executive pay perhaps.

[motorbird83]

It's totally misleading to suggest charities can operate as private business for profit. If you think their are executive pay issues, raise that here (or better yet the Charity Commission).

Personally,I have concerns about Academies because most chain Academies don't do a better job than the LA and the free school system makes planning in a coordinated way difficult.

However, some of this thread is pure nonsense.

[LadyDeliah]

Excessive executive pay for charity execs:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385120/Charity-bosses-earning-100-000-accused-excessive-pay-rises.html

But charity executives say ?100,000 pa isn't excessive:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10225348/Executive-pay-at-charities-not-excessive-claims-industry.html

[LadyDeliah]

Something to throw into the Harris debate:

http://antiacademies.org.uk/2012/03/harris-federation-spotlight-on-sponsors/

Not entirely unbiased, but a lot of interesting stats, including executive pay of nearly ?250,000.

[first mate]

LD, I note in that last link that it is stated that Harris have 'exempt charity' status where they are not required to submit accounts to the Charity Commission- so who does have oversight? Must say that the article and comments from disgruntled staff makes rather worrying reading.

[LadyDeliah]

Yes, lack of transparency and oversight of free schools and academies appears to be an issue.

[bornagain]

James or anyone else who can answer!

If Harris sets up a school on the police station site, who will own the freehold? Who will buy the land for use as a school? Will it be Harris, Lord Harris, central government or who? That piece of land is worth a fortune and I think we as a community should know who will actually own it if a school is built on it.

[LadyDeliah]

I agree with bornagain. Charities can sell assets in the future to whoever they like unless it's set up as a trust. Harris Foundation was a profit making organisation until 2011.

I don't believe Harris has suddenly been overcome by philanthropic impulses because he changed his company to an opaque exempt status charity.

[sedm]

Putting aside the rights & wrongs of the free school/academy debate - Harris schools have a great track record, many rated Outstanding in tough areas.

That's got to be a good thing (unless you're so wealthy you can afford to go private, and care more about an intellectual debate rather than the quality of education local kids receive.)

[LondonMix]

It's typically the DofE (i.e. central government who own the land and buildings).

[James Barber]

Hi born again,

My understanding is the land would be owned by the Department of Education and leased to the school for a peppercorn rent.

Google took me directly to Harris Federation accounts:

http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=135249&downloadar=pdf

[bornagain]

Thank you, so DofE have a ready fund to buy up land for use by free schools? Not sure if that is better than being owned more locally i.e. by the council?

[James Barber]

Hi born again,

They've also given Southwark very large sums to expand existing council schools this year from memory ?12.5m this year alone.

[LadyDeliah]

Thought this might be interesting for anyone who wants to know more about the opaque selection process for granting permission to build new free schools:

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/07/why-is-government-secretive-about-free-schools?CMP=twt_gu

[Otta]

Why are we talking about schools (seriously, can't be bothered reading all 3 pages of this)? Surely that site is way too small for a decent school.

[James Barber]

Hi Otta,

I would be the same space as Heber and Goose Green schools.