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

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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