[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by JackB

I think that depends who the "other kids" are.

So you'll let your child not get the education they are entitled too for fear of somehow being called a racist by discussing the matter with the head teacher (what exactly do you think you'll say? "These bloody foriegners with no right to be here are stopping my kid getting educated") yet you'll quite happily appear as a racist on here.
Sorry, but I pity your child if that's how little importance you actually place on their education.
I certainly wouldn't let something like that slip by.

---------- Post added at 12:11 ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 ----------

Originally Posted by freezin

Sorry to backtrack.



Well you'd expect the BBC to report the headmaster's comments fairly, wouldn't you?

Hell no. I'd expect the BBC to put their own slant on it using the information available. The girls may not have wished to give interviews for example.

Originally Posted by freein

I know of similar cases too, but no such claims have been brought against either newspaper over this particular issue. And Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, is a member of the PCC. Perhaps that doesn't say much for the PCC?

You know of other cases where a local rag claims toy guns sold for £1.99 can kill or paralyse, where complaints have been raised by someone who just read the article and wished to set the record straight over the facts?

Originally Posted by freezin

Evidently you are actually prepared to believe that this 14 year old is both a liar and a racist, despite no claims to the contrary? Interesting.

Are you not prepared to believe that the 14 year old is both a liar and a racist?
If not, why not?
Many 14 year olds are liars, many are racists, many are both. What's special about this girl that she can't possibly be either?

Originally Posted by freezin

Please clarify: If she had been honest, ie that she was expected to discuss a subject with a group of 5 others, only 1 of whom could speak English, do you think she acted reasonably in asking her teacher if she could change groups? (And the MEN did not report the discussion group children as being girls.)

I've been put to work with a girl who had speach issues, she never spoke, the reason I was put with her was to try and bring her out of her shell because of the type of person I was, I wouldn't make fun of her, or ignore her, I'd coax her to speak, and it worked.
What better way to help people if they have poor english skills to learn english than to work with english pupils in a discussion task?
Or do you think they should integrate by being segregated in class? Would that be better?

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Someone else earlier pointed out about confusing asylum seekers with immigrants I may be doing this but its hard to see who is a immigrant and who is an asylum seeker.

It's quite easy if you just use your noggin
Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, so are reliant on reduced benefits and social housing (different allocation of social housing to natives, so no worry about them jumping ahead of any British workshy scrotes now, so don't fret). Why aren't they allowed to work I hear any sensible person ask?
Well, you see, a load of racist anti-immigrant bigots went "waaa waaa waaa they're just claiming to be asylum seekers to take all our jobs, the low paid ones which Brits like us don't want to do" so the governmnet, in true Tabloid Policy style, denied asylum seekers the right to work, so any doctors, nurses, teachers etc who are qualified to work in the UK, just can't. So, because they can't work, there's this little thing called duty of care, you may have heard about it, it's sometimes considered part of what's being British, and basically it means that being decent human beings (we are decent human beings aren't we? Well, I am) we look after people in need whenever we can. So rather than your asylum seeker being able to work, pay rent, tax, food etc, they now are reliant on the state to support them. Course, then all the right wing racist biggots said "Waa waa waa they're all coming over to get benefits that our own workshy scrotes should get" so the benefits that an asylum seeker get are lower than what a British workshy scrote would get.
Then the right wing racist biggots said "Waa waa waa they're still coming for benefits, and 0.5% of the total benefit expendature is way too high, that money should go to British workshy scrotes" and we have the situation we're in today where the media loves blurring the line between immigrant and asylum seeker.
Great isn't it?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Well by natives I mean people who dont need to be treated different to live in this country, examples school uniforms, speaking english, mixing with whites/asians etc. The reason there is these schools is because the children attending them would have problems attending a traditional school. Its a touchy subject and people can easily be offended by what I am trying to say but I hope my points are understood, educating children from a family where the parents can barely speak english is more diffilcult and expensive then educating someone who has had family here for generations.

So Catholics who send their kids to Catholic schools aren't native then?
Or Anglicans who send their children to CoE schools?

Educating someone who spent most of their childhood speaking another language costs more in time, but even if English isn't spoken at home, most children who were born here are able to speak english by the time they reach primary school (the exception I know of being the son of an ex-neighbour, who could hardly speak, didn't know his colours or how to count to 3, but could swear like a trooper. Course his mother was white, english (native), and never did a days work in her life, oh and her other kids are currently helping to boost the prison population even higher).