Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

???? 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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

  • 3 weeks later...

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

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

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.”
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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