Tuesday, 25 November 2014

this is #rich stealing from the #poor again #private schools are purely a #religious construct

labour warns private schools 2help state pupils or lose £700m tax breaks http://gu.com/p/43t9h/stw this is rich stealing from the poor again
how many years have these business used this tax loop hole, this country is owed a rebate over 100's of years on this lie

private schools are purely a religious construct




Tristram Hunt warns private schools to help state pupils or lose £700m in tax breaks

Shadow education secretary accuses Tories of doing nothing to ‘breach Berlin Wall’ in education system

Tristram Hunt: private schools have done too little for too long



Uncertainty warning over AS-levels
 Tristram Hunt claims private schools have been asked politely to cooperate with the state sector, with limited effect. Photograph: David Davies/PA

Britain’s private schools will lose £700m in tax breaks unless they agree to break down the “corrosive divide of privilege” and do more to help children from state schools, Tristram Hunt, shadow education secretary, writes in the Guardian.
Labour, on winning the general election in May next year, would prevent private schools accessing business rate relief worth £700m over the next parliament unless they do more to improve the quality of education in state schools.
Hunt argues that private schools have been asked politely to cooperate with the state sector, with limited effect. He warns: “The next government will say to them: step up and play your part. Earn your keep. Because the time you could expect something for nothing is over.”
He accuses the Tories of having “done nothing to breach this Berlin Wall in our education system”.
Previously, Labour had advocated depriving independent schools of charitable status if they did not meet a clear public benefit test, but a 2011 court case brought by the Independent Schools Council in effect closed that route. However, 2,570 fee-charging schools can claim an 80% cut in their business rates on the basis that they are charities, and in 2013 they saved £165m through this route.
Labour has been given legal advice that ministers have the power to take away that business rate relief without challenging their charitable status. Labour would amend the 1988 Local Government Act, making business rate relief conditional on a school signing a partnership agreement.
Hunt’s plan amounts to an assault on the privileges of the elite. It was in the pipeline before recent claims that Labour is out of touch with its working-class base, but his plan may reassure those wanting the party to make a clearer attack on inequality. In his Guardian article, Hunt argues: “Created in a culture of philanthropy and Christian duty, too many independent schools have become barriers to British educational success. The division between state and private education corrodes our society, stifles opportunity and, by wasting talent, inflicts damage upon our economy.
“Some private schools want to overcome this division, but most do not. It is time to stop asking politely.”
Hunt claims many private schools are failing to earn the subsidy, often providing only token benefits to their communities such as the entrance to art exhibitions for three hours a day, hiring out a hall at a large annual profit, putting on a community fashion show or allowing infrequent use of a football field.
Hunt says that this is not good enough and that a Labour government would hold individual schools to account under a new, stringent set of standards. The subsidy via business rates will only be payable when schools meet a new “Schools Partnership Standard”, Hunt says.
These will require them to provide qualified teachers in specialist subjects to state schools, share expertise to help state school students get into top universities and run joint extracurricular programmes in which the state school is an equal partner so that children can mix and sectors learn from each other. They should also make more of their sports facilities available to local state pupils.
Hunt stresses he admires many aspects of the way in which private schools teach, arguing: “In subject knowledge, pupil confidence, co-curricular activity, staff development and alumni networks, independent schools have lessons for those in the state sector. In turn, private schools have a great deal to learn from mainstream schooling on whole-class teaching, modern British values, student engagement and, indeed, value for money. This has to be a relationship of respectful, advantageous interaction.”
Hunt’s intervention comes, by chance, in the week that a headteacher at one of England’s top fee-paying schools claimed some private schools have become so expensive that lawyers, doctors and teachers can no longer afford to educate their children privately, and have “become nothing more than finishing schools for the children of oligarchs”.
Andrew Halls, the head of King’s College school, in Wimbledon, south-west London, told the Sunday Times that said fee-paying schools were requiring £30,000 in taxed income to pay for just one child a year, and the increase in fees “was caused by a rise in demand from an apparently endless queue of wealthy families from across the world”.
Critics of Hunt’s plan will complain that the loss of business rate relief would only increase fees.
Hunt – himself the product of a private school, University College School, in London – insists: “If we are to prosper as a country, we need to be a more equal country. If we are to make the most of the wealth of talent that exists in every school and every community, we need to give every child a chance.
“And if we are to be a country which works for most people, we need to break down divisions in our school system with concerted, collaborative and co-ordinated action from the entire English educational landscape – including the private sector.”
Research by the Sutton Trust suggests that an independent day-school pupil is 22 times more likely to attend a Russell Group university than a state school student from a disadvantaged background.
Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief inspector of schools, has likened the current model of partnership between independent and state schools to “crumbs off your table”.
Hunt himself points to figures showing just 3% of private schools sponsor an academy, while only a further 5% loan teaching staff to state schools.
Barnaby Lenon, chairman of the Independent Schools Council, said: “Independent schools are committed to helping widen access to their schools and to improving social mobility. Already 90% of our schools are already involved in meaningful and effective partnerships with state schools and their local communities. Independent schools generate £4.7bn in tax and save the taxpayer a further £4bn, equivalent to building 460 schools, by educating children out of the state school sector.
“To subject independent schools to one-size-fits-all regulations does not take into account the diverse nature of our sector – many are small local schools. … Clawing back business rate relief on independent schools seems a very ineffective tool to improve social mobility in any meaningful way.”

Monday, 24 November 2014

this is one of many reason you dont live in a ‪‎#democracy‬

this is one of many reason you dont live in a ‪‎#democracy‬
and how the ‪#‎church‬ lies from the ‪#‎shadows‬

http://www.theguardian.com/…/prince-charles-letters-ministe…
rule no1
there can be no democracy when who #rules over #government is a ‪#state‬ ‪#‎ #secret‬ this is why they call them selfs #elite because they get to make up the rules no matter what
there has to be  a #constitution   that also talks in detail about who, how the church ruled and why.



Prince Charles letters: minister’s veto of publication was lawful, court told

Supreme court hears QC James Eadie open the government’s latest effort in its nine-year campaign to keep the letters secret


2:38
/
2:38
The Guardian has campaigned for nine years to see the ‘black spider memos’. But what are they? Our multimedia team explain

A senior government minister acted lawfully when he overrode a court and vetoed the publication of secret letters written by Prince Charles, the supreme court heard on Monday.
James Eadie, QC for the government, rejected suggestions that the use of the veto by Dominic Grieve, who was attorney general at the time, was an “intrinsically suspect or objectionable constitutional aberration”.
He told the court that parliament had taken “a carefully considered, deliberate decision” to give ministers such as the attorney general power to override rulings by the freedom of information tribunal “to protect the public interest where real and significant issues arise”.
Grieve overruled three judges who had decided the public had the right to see how the prince had written to ministers in an effort to influence official policies.‬
Eadie was opening the government’s latest attempt to keep a set of such letters secret. Backed by the prince, it has refused a freedom of information request from the Guardian for copies of the correspondence for nine years.
Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court, and six leading judges will consider legal arguments for two days before delivering a judgment at a later date.
The prince has gained a reputation for writing private letters to government ministers promoting his views. The letters have been called “black spider memos” because of his scrawled handwriting.‬
At issue in the supreme court hearing are 27 letters exchanged between the heir to the throne and ministers in seven Whitehall departments between September 2004 and April 2005.‬
Three judges in a freedom of information tribunal ruled in 2012 that the letters should be disclosed, on the basis that the public was entitled to know how and when the prince sought to influence government.‬
Grieve, however, used his power of veto to overrule the tribunal, arguing that publication would seriously damage Charles’s future role as king. He said the letters had to be kept secret to preserve the prince’s political neutrality.‬
The court of appeal ruled in March that Grieve’s use of the veto had been unlawful. Lord Dyson, the leading civil judge in England and Wales, and two senior judges decided that Grieve had “no good reason for overriding the meticulous decision” of the tribunal.‬
On Monday, Eadie told the supreme court it was plain that parliament had given ministers the power to veto rulings from the tribunal on reasonable grounds when the freedom of information act was passed.
“It is acknowledged that it is unusual for parliament to bestow on the executive a power to override a decision of a tribunal or court,” he said.
“However there is nothing constitutionally out of the ordinary in parliament deciding that the ultimate primary decision-maker on where the public interest lies in the context of disclosure should be the executive.
“It is clear that parliament decided … that the highest level of government should be permitted to have the final say as to whether information, the disclosure of which it considered to be damaging to the public interest, should be disclosed.”
He also said that “a premise that the veto is some form of intrinsically suspect or objectionable constitutional aberration” lay at the heart of the court of appeal’s decision that Grieve’s use of the veto had been unlawful.
He added that the power of veto was based on the “premise that a democratically accountable senior minister is ultimately best placed to assess the public interest”.
Dinah Rose QC is due to put the Guardian’s case on Tuesday.‬