Jump to content

Recommended Posts

more in response to ???? remark but meaning if son that studied in secondary school in Ghana is concerned, most secondary education in Equatorial African countries is private.


Diane Abbot may have other children of course who attended private school in this country which I am not aware of. I was referring to the one son I know of who Diane chose to have educated in Ghana rather than here in the U.K

pipsky2008 Wrote:

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

> more in response to ???? remark but meaning if son

> that studied in secondary school in Ghana is

> concerned, most secondary education in Equatorial

> African countries is private.

>

> Diane Abbot may have other children of course who

> attended private school in this country which I am

> not aware of. I was referring to the one son I

> know of who Diane chose to have educated in Ghana

> rather than here in the U.K



So The City of London School is in Ghana is it?

She is a ridiculous figure essentially her message for years was 'private schools are totally wrong, especially if you are Labour like me.....oh until I want to send my son to one & then it's totally ok & my defense is that he might have got into a gang at a state school..'

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> I'm trying to decide if she would be a better

> option than George Galloway....bring back the

> Monster Raving Loonies please...at least they

> didn't try to pretend that are sane. (btw I've

> never voted Labour and I'm not about to start now)


They never went away. Call themselves OMRLP a lot now

They have 7 councillors


Galloway is dangerous as he does speak well.

I find Diane Abbott as annoying, ingratiating and generally as shallow and bleughhh as, say, Robert Elms.

She is a shameful hypocrite.


Incidentally, regarding her sending her kid to Ghana for education, I have heard of families doing this because they know their kids will be caned when they are naughty; something that is not allowed here (anymore)!

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 Firkins were they? The only localish ones I remember were the Phoenix and Firkin and the Fox and Firkin. The Plough has changed its name several times, and then back to the Plough, but to the best of my recollection the Uplands Tavern was named that until it became The Actress, and The Bishop was called something else whose name escapes me (though the smell from the gents lingers in my memory) but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Firkin?
    • These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted:  "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".  
    • Thanks so much. Yes I have. Really appreciate your kindness in replying. Thank you.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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