Sikh School To Be Built In Slough, England.

Why don't you read what's posted BEFORE you make a fool of yourself? l already explained to you how the government gets their 90% back, and more, so they end up making a profit.

The school will teach the national curriculum, just like any other school, but instead of having christian prayers at morning assembly they will do whatever Sikhs do, what's wrong with that? Where is the government "selling out for 10%"?

Quote:

---

Was it said that the school will teach Sikh school ideology? Yes

---

No-one knows what ideology they will be teaching so this is more rubbish.

Sheesh! Some people just can't admit they were wrong, at least Hobbes states quite clearly that he is stating an opinion.

Spurious:
Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.

Specious
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

Whatever --- take your pick. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

So basically the UK government awards grants to qualified applicants to decrease classroom sizes regardless of extra curriculum.
Yes it does award grants to qualified applicants....... It is not regardless of extra curriculum.... if the extra curriculum fails to qualify...for example they what to teach white supremacy...the school would not have qualified fro the grant
What's weird is that they are funding 90% and selling out for 10. :huh:

---

How are they selling out?

I would like to once again make it clear that Britain doesn't have a constituional seperation of church and state. This is because in the most part is it not needed. The British don't generally tend to be as religion orientated as the USA, most of the traditional churches will be lacking attendance, and come election time people will be voting for a government...not a spiritual leader....this is not to say that the british don't believe in god. Odd thing is that the most devoted groups to their religious traditions do tend to be those that are either immigrants or come from families that are fairly new to the country.
If the school in this case was to be a C of E school i doubt it would have made the news apart from the local papers.


Before anyone says "I am british and i am serious in my religion" i am making a generalisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by busy

Do any of those teacher's teach Sikh ideology? Yes or No?

---

I can't answer that any other way except that they may or may not...chances are that any religious lessons will be in the form of the "assembly/ morning prayer" where the whole school gathers in a hall.
As i said my niece attends a church school in the Uk and the only religious teaching she has are readings during morning prayer/assembly. The rest of the day is spent on the national curriculum.

Quote:

---

Plus UKResident said once open it's 50% funded. Is that correct?

---

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the figure but it would seem to be a reasonable number

edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

So basically the UK government awards grants to qualified applicants to decrease classroom sizes

---

It's not to decrease class size. It only happens if there is a need for a new school. the class size has a maximum and if the local school have not achieved that maximum then there would not be a need for the state to supply funds for a new school

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

Spurious:
Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.

Specious
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

Whatever --- take your pick. :rolleyes:

---

Neither work. I've only used the facts given to form my own opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I wasn't suggesting your argument was specious, only that it may have been the appropriate word for UKProxy's intended meaning.

---

No problem J.

You merely gave more rope for UK's suicidal hanging. ;)

Ah, the personal stuff, this must mean you've run out of ideas then, good.

That was a joke, and was part of a longer piece, as you well know. But it's OK, you can get personal, l really don't mind, l find you quite amusing.

Quote:

---

... your explanation is patently specious.

---

You've been waiting to use that word, l can tell. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

It didn't come across as a joke. Particularly when one of your first posts to me included "How's Mary", or similar.

Others can decide whether you were attempting to be humorous when you posted it. I simply don't believe you, your explanation is patently specious.

---

"Specious"- could you stop using that word, at all?

OK..

I couldnt be bothered to read the last few pages so..

1/ Parents have a right to choose where their children are taught.

2/ It is illegal for a school to refuse admission on the grounds of Race/Religion etc.

3/ They cannot make children go to the extra religious element, and children have the right to refuse to go to them.


As I said earlier, the Catholic Schools in particular, in this area have a waiting list to get in.

These children are from all religions/races.

The Catholic Church sponsors the schools so that the Catholic Faith will be made available to Catholic schoolchildren in the area. They usually have a presence on the board of Governors.

At the end of the day though, just like any school in the UK (except Public Schools (read: Private Schools for those in the USA))... Its the Governors that decide School Policy and who they want to sponsor them, if anyone...

ie: The Parents of the children of that school (or in this case, the parents of the community the school was to be built in)



Im all for schools getting extra funding if they can. I'd much rather they did this than followed the US route where some schools are marketing Coca Cola etc and selling it to raise cash (as an example) etc etc

Or Liberal? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

no point mate, we are wrong they are right, that is all.

it matters not one jot that it is our children, our country and our taxes.

if we vary from their opinion of right then we must be wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I agree though that if the UK likes it that way, so be it.

---

Uh, yeah, whatever. :dry:

It seems we were forming our own opinion and you may not like it.
I can form an opinion about prostitution in Vegas even though I live Washington DC.

So yes, you're wrong, yup that's right. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

Ah, the personal stuff, this must mean you've run out of ideas then, good.

---

It means you've proven yourself a shit googler and lack common sense.

I put forth the opinion that Sikhmorningprayerteachingideologywhateverthefuck shouldn't be in schools funded by government.

It's called a Sikh school for a reason, I imagine.

I also said that paying 90% to get 10% is selling out and further with the 50% of ongoing education. It obviously works, numbers wise.

Someone mentioned the Coca-Cola thing in America...that's selling out to. The problem is I remember soda machines in high school so if it's Coke instead of Shasta and they want to pay the school that's very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

no point mate, we are wrong they are right, that is all.

it matters not one jot that it is our children, our country and our taxes.

if we vary from their opinion of right then we must be wrong.

---

Actually, I thought I posted that if is alright with the UK, so be it.

I just disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Actually, I thought I posted that if is alright with the UK, so be it.

I just disagree.

---

You did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

This is my opinion, if the people in the UK are happy, that is their choice, but one I disagree with.

---

I agreed with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

It means you've proven yourself a shit googler and lack common sense.

---

:lol:

An oasis in a rather dry thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

It means you've proven yourself a shit googler and lack common sense.

I also said that paying 90% to get 10% is selling out and further with the 50% of ongoing education. It obviously works, numbers wise.
.

---

No, what it proves is your total lack of ability to understand economic principles.

l explained quite cleary about how the 90% grant is paid back, with interest. l also explained how the 50% running costs save the government money. So the problem here isn't me, it's your lack of understanding of quite simple principles.

Might l suggest you try harder to read and understand what we are striving to teach you.

(2/10, must try harder)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

No, what it proves is your total lack of ability to understand economic principles.

l explained quite cleary about how the 90% grant is paid back, with interest. l also explained how the 50% running costs save the government money. So the problem here isn't me, it's your lack of understanding of quite simple principles.

Might l suggest you try harder to read and understand what we are striving to teach you.

(2/10, must try harder)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

It obviously works, numbers wise.

---

Where's the lack of understanding? The fact the governement saves money was never in dispute. It's obviously based on numbers and not principle.

You obviously can't read English even though you might be.......English. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Where's the lack of understanding? The fact the governement saves money was never in dispute. It's obviously based on numbers and not principle.

You obviously can't read English even though you might be.......English. :dry:

---

If it was never in dispute then why is the crux of your argument this 90\10 bullshit? Just admit you were wrong, or isn't that in your American vocabulary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

If it was never in dispute then why is the crux of your argument this 90\10 bullshit? Just admit you were wrong, or isn't that in your American vocabulary?

---

The 90/10 is pertinent since it proves that money matters first and foremost in the education of the children over putting specific religion in schools.

Never in dispute means that I didn't say there wasn't a money savings. You need reading comprehension classes or better glasses because your lack of "getting it" makes you smell like many asses.

Ween yourself off the heroin and drop down to cocaine.

You don't even know the difference between 60's segregation and so-called 2K segregation, which is a misnomer.

Defending your educational system is one thing but this ridiculous. :dry:

How does it prove that money is the most important thing?

Resorting to personal insults to prove your point makes you look stupid, par for the course with you. l guess you'll be trying to scare me with one of your "look how big and tough l am" posts next. Grow up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

How does it prove that money is the most important thing?

Resorting to personal insults to prove your point makes you look stupid, par for the course with you. l guess you'll be trying to scare me with one of your "look how big and tough l am" posts next. Grow up.

---

Point has been made....numerous times.

Let me sugar coat it. The government treats religion in schools as a small matter as long as the numbers match, ok UKMan? :)