The post you are reporting:
Barryw/Bob
I don't believe a yes/no answer is enough and I will now go into explanation.
I do oppose grammar schools, and the trauma it causes primary school children who both do make it, and of course worse, those that don't.
I t still is for a select few, and without doubt unfair to other hildren attending state schools.
I'm sure f state schools could afford to have 20 n a class they would do as well, but many do even without this.
Without doubt backgrounds of family has a big bearing on childrens futures,
certainly its fair to say what used to be called workg class backgrounds, a few will get through the system, but in the main they lose out.
Just to show this is something i have posted on before, iI told the story of the labour party debate locally on wantng to oppose grammar schools, as usual i got up and said how can we go on the doorstep opposing grammar schools when the MP 's daughter attended grammar schools, tthe labour organiser boy attended grammar, and the chair/treasurer boy attended grammar, I lost the debate
So I nformed the party I would campaign for the election of labour candidates but wont campaign because of theabove on oppostion to grammar schools.
At the break(in those days labour had fag breaks)
the treasurer came to me fuming and said dont you ever criticise my husband again.
I said pardon?
she said on grammar debate, dont you ever do that again
they were more choice words
I then told her to go and play(not exact words) lol
and i told her i would not be returning to the meeting as i would probably say things to her that i would regret.
So i went home!!!!
If you beleve in these things you have to have more principles.
I used to have more prnciples, i was told on my principled stand omn many issues
someone told me its ok having principles but it doesnt put food on the table
and of course hes correct
so i hope this rather long reply answers you barryw and we can move on
when i did the last posting peter actually thanked me for my honesty
so i do remember