L00b Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Private dwellings are subsidised massively. Those rented out to social tenants may well be "subsidised", accepting for a moment your interpretation (I don't...but for the sake of the argument). That's far from being 100% of private dwellings rented out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Many of the best-known public schools are extremely expensive, and many have entry criteria geared towards those who have been at private "feeder" preparatory-schools or privately tutored Couple of things:- Firstly, "public schools" are different, largely, to independent schools. "Public schools" refers to a specific set of independents, and certainly not the majority. If you google public school definition, you'll see what I mean. Next, they're actually not that expensive. They're no more expensive, in the earlier years anyway, than a private nursery. In our case, the school fees worked out cheaper than the nursery fees. Next, you're actually wrong about entry criteria too. I suggest you look into that a little more. The vast, vast majority of the pupils at the local independents start there in reception (or in the case of Westbourne, in pre-school). There are no tests, no exams, and no criteria. The only condition is that the child has an ability to learn, which I'd suggest all do. There is a certain percentage who join later. The schools don't publicise that percentage, but it's not as high as you seem to think. Yes, there are entry exams, but that's understandable. Those exams are not, as you suggest, to keep only privately educated children, or those from more traditionally well-off areas at all. The exams show ability, and nothing else. You want an example to show it's nothing to do with class/area? One of the head pupils in one of the independents in Sheffield is from the Wybourn. A very good example of an able pupil doing well. Yes, state is cheaper, and yes, state pupils can do very well in their lives (I came from a state school and a council estate), but I think for your comparison, independent is simply leagues ahead of state, for various reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Private dwellings are subsidised massively. Council dwellings are run at a profit. Generally for the private profit of a few. Are they? Why do people keep hold of council properties in more sought after areas - could it be because council rent is lower than a mortgage or a private landlord. I'm sure several councillors were in the news last year doing exactly the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Are they? Why do people keep hold of council properties in more sought after areas - could it be because council rent is lower than a mortgage or a private landlord. I'm sure several councillors were in the news last year doing exactly the same thing. I think that Chem1st means that some private rents are subsidised by housing benefit. In effect some private landlords are having their mortgages paid for out of general taxation. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) I think that Chem1st means that some private rents are subsidised by housing benefit. In effect some private landlords are having their mortgages paid for out of general taxation. jb This point of chem1st goes a fair bit further than that, barleycorn: you've described the point in simple terms of remuneration for a service, but chem1st considers it in significantly more complicated terms His post (quoting mine) is heavily laden with 'unsaid' arguments, and his use of "massively" in there belies their extent. In fairness, you'd have to be moderately familiar with his myriad housing-related threads to know that. But let's not go there. Pleeease! all that said, and all the same, friendly wave at chem1st Edited February 18, 2014 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Are they? Why do people keep hold of council properties in more sought after areas - could it be because council rent is lower than a mortgage or a private landlord. I'm sure several councillors were in the news last year doing exactly the same thing. All housing is artificially inflated in value and artificially scarce and thus desirable to some degree. ---------- Post added 18-02-2014 at 16:04 ---------- This point of chem1st goes a fair bit further than that, barleycorn: you've described the point in simple terms of remuneration for a service, but chem1st considers it in significantly more complicated terms His post (quoting mine) is heavily laden with 'unsaid' arguments, and his use of "massively" in there belies their extent. In fairness, you'd have to be moderately familiar with his myriad housing-related threads to know that. But let's not go there. Pleeease! all that said, and all the same, friendly wave at chem1st Let's be fair, there are many factors affecting the 'value' and 'desirability' of housing. There are not limited to but include... Artificially scarcity through the planning regime. Housing benefit and LHA pumping up rates. Buy to let lending, pumping up prices. Tax relief for landlords on mortgage pumping up prices. Increased customer base, via immigration. Forced demolition to increase scarcity. Direct cash subsidy to landlords to spend on properties. Lack of taxation on housing making it a desirable investment vehicle, or place to park wealth, when housing should really be seen as a basic human need for all people. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 28, 2017 Author Share Posted April 28, 2017 I have seen amounts ranging from £10-£22 million, radio four said it would cost the NHS £18 million. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/28/cancer-surgeon-convicted-of-performing-needless-breast-surgery http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/evil-surgeon-ian-paterson-built-12959888 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHRemovals Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 coz they think about the few not the many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Depends what needs to be acheived. A mix of both private and public should be possible really. There should be no compulsion to default to either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Some things should not be run for profit. Care homes for example. Let's see, how can we maximise profit? Well, we can cut back on staff and manage with the bare minimum, and if that means residents have to wait longer to go to the toilet, tough. And we can cut down on food and drink, so forget the milky horlicks and chocolate biscuit at night, and we'll buy the cheapest ingredients we can get, and cut down portions. And then we can sack the expensive enrichment officer and close the craftroom, that should save a bit, they can all sit and watch telly instead. And forget trips out - do they think we're made of money? That should make more money for the shareholders, they should be well pleased... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now