| Good Luck UK 12:13 - Dec 12 with 66036 views | PlanetHonneywood |
For the Eze, not the Pugh!
#votewarburton
|  |
| |  |
| Good Luck UK on 09:10 - Dec 18 with 1634 views | queensparker |
Your last point is true - we're a dying breed. I work with all sorts of people from different backgrounds in a massive office in west London and everyone's amazed to hear I actually grew up round here. Hardly any of the young kids can afford to live in London, they all commute in from miles away. It's a real shame, as late as the 90s it was fairly easy to rent a flat somewhere central (a dump, but at least affordable)
My grandparents came here from Ireland before the war so my kids are now fourth generation Londoners, determined to keep the streak going! |  | | |
| Good Luck UK on 09:54 - Dec 18 with 1582 views | johncharles |
| Good Luck UK on 14:46 - Dec 17 by Konk |
I think London generally looks an awful lot better now than it did when I was a kid and I don’t understand how you can argue otherwise. Just looking at areas that I’ve always known: The Angel, Highbury, Holloway, Canonbury, Archway, Kings Cross, Tufnell Park, Kentish Town etc; all infinitely smarter and less shabby than they were when I was at school. And that applies to loads of South, East and West London too.
I reckon it’s a better city to eat and drink in than it’s been in my lifetime, public transport is great, it’s full of interesting people, museums, galleries etc are world class. Loads of sport and amazing parks. That said, it’s probably an increasingly sh it place to be if you’re potless, living in sh it digs and worried about your kids getting involved in gangs. But even though I’m very happy to have moved away, that might not have been the case if I’d been living in Crouch End rather than Wood Green. Similarly, I’d be less enamoured of Bristol if I’d ended up in Hartcliffe rather than the poncy end of BS3. I haven’t just swapped cities, I’ve moved to a much calmer, ‘nicer’ area and house(!) that I could never have afforded in London.
London is far too expensive, too unequal, can be too aggressive and too relentless, but it’s surely still one of the world’s great cities. I still love the place. |
And the pavements must be warmer as well, so many people “choosing“ to sleep on them. A lot more than 20 years ago. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Good Luck UK on 10:31 - Dec 18 with 1547 views | Phildo |
Really interesting stuff on London.
London property became a safe haven for foreign money (a lot of it bent) about 20 years ago and I think that has caused ripple effects all over the place (as well as other reasons set out so well above).
What I would have called posh people who used to live in areas like Kensington moved out to places like Hammersmith and the Bush as they could no longer compete in that segment of the market.
In turn those living in those areas moved out- people from the Bush where i grew up mostly went West to paces like say Hillingdon. I ended up in South London where you can see the Caribbean population leaving Brixton and heading to places like South Norwood.
My parents were Irish migrants who did blue collar jobs and managed to end up in a nice house in the Bush. No way that could happen today. Add to that my Dad smoked 70 a day and could afford a few pints each day in the Queen of England (as was). I went to Cardinal Vaughan- a comprehensive which in the 80s had a wide social mix. I went back for a reunion this year and though the school is still a comp it has a very different catchment intake with MPs kids amongst others going there.
For a bit of history though a lot of areas that were very middle class before the war were hollowed out after the war which meant people like us could get a foothold. London emptied out, there were bomb sites everywhere (remember all the old scrapyards now developed that were on bomb sites).Before the war there was less automation so if you lived in a decent sized Victorian house you needed a maid- after the war nobody wanted to work as a maid. Those super rich house around Regents Park were selling for about £5000 each after the war because no one could maintain them or the gardens and could not get staff to do so.
Property prices in London were pretty stagnant from the end of the war to the early 70s. So in some ways the rich and poor living alongside each other may be a bit of a return to pre-war London. It was also not common after the war for working people to own there own home.
An architect I know thinks we may be heading back to stagnation (in London) long term as the whole thing is a bit of a ponzi scheme and we are moving to more isolationist times.
I used to think the Bush would never change- and places like the Uxbridge Road still look grotty. But scratch the surface and it has become much more middle class- look at the shops on the Askew Road- artisan butchers etc. Spit and sawdust pubs close when there is no one to use them.
Having said all that the History of London from its very beginning is one of churn - people moving in getting a foothold and on somewhere else and recent immigration is nothing new on that front. |  | | |
| Good Luck UK on 10:32 - Dec 18 with 1545 views | loftboy |
Would they be the elderly that left school at 14 and worked for Over 50 years? Unlike today’s kids that are in their twenties before they start paying tax?
Edited to say that many my dads age paid into a private pension fund which would have seen him comfortably well off until Gordon Brown robbed them all and his scheme went bust, he now received a fraction of what he should be getting, he has cancer and my mum recently broke her neck, she is now housebound yet my dad refuses any outside help and won’t even let social services pay for a cleaner. [Post edited 18 Dec 2019 10:38]
|  |
| |
| Good Luck UK on 10:47 - Dec 18 with 1511 views | loftboy |
On the leaving school at 14, kids today want to go to uni then go straight into a top job, my dad started at 14 as an office junior on a few shillings a week and worked his way up to a junior buyer then to senior buyer he eventually became head of Lockheed’s purchasing dept in the uk, the first non American to get it, he got this through gaining experience in the work place which absolutely can’t be achieved at Uni.
A bit controversial but I don’t think as many people should be going to uni as there are, the apprenticeship programme needs to be ramped up and companies need to start taking responsibility for training the next generation. Would get more people onto the tax system earlier this generating more income whilst giving people valuable work experience. | |
| |
| Good Luck UK on 11:01 - Dec 18 with 1481 views | DannytheR |
| Good Luck UK on 10:31 - Dec 18 by Phildo |
Really interesting stuff on London.
London property became a safe haven for foreign money (a lot of it bent) about 20 years ago and I think that has caused ripple effects all over the place (as well as other reasons set out so well above).
What I would have called posh people who used to live in areas like Kensington moved out to places like Hammersmith and the Bush as they could no longer compete in that segment of the market.
In turn those living in those areas moved out- people from the Bush where i grew up mostly went West to paces like say Hillingdon. I ended up in South London where you can see the Caribbean population leaving Brixton and heading to places like South Norwood.
My parents were Irish migrants who did blue collar jobs and managed to end up in a nice house in the Bush. No way that could happen today. Add to that my Dad smoked 70 a day and could afford a few pints each day in the Queen of England (as was). I went to Cardinal Vaughan- a comprehensive which in the 80s had a wide social mix. I went back for a reunion this year and though the school is still a comp it has a very different catchment intake with MPs kids amongst others going there.
For a bit of history though a lot of areas that were very middle class before the war were hollowed out after the war which meant people like us could get a foothold. London emptied out, there were bomb sites everywhere (remember all the old scrapyards now developed that were on bomb sites).Before the war there was less automation so if you lived in a decent sized Victorian house you needed a maid- after the war nobody wanted to work as a maid. Those super rich house around Regents Park were selling for about £5000 each after the war because no one could maintain them or the gardens and could not get staff to do so.
Property prices in London were pretty stagnant from the end of the war to the early 70s. So in some ways the rich and poor living alongside each other may be a bit of a return to pre-war London. It was also not common after the war for working people to own there own home.
An architect I know thinks we may be heading back to stagnation (in London) long term as the whole thing is a bit of a ponzi scheme and we are moving to more isolationist times.
I used to think the Bush would never change- and places like the Uxbridge Road still look grotty. But scratch the surface and it has become much more middle class- look at the shops on the Askew Road- artisan butchers etc. Spit and sawdust pubs close when there is no one to use them.
Having said all that the History of London from its very beginning is one of churn - people moving in getting a foothold and on somewhere else and recent immigration is nothing new on that front. |
Yeah, this is fascinating stuff. I make you right about the timescale and some of the reasons why. Must have been 1998 when our landlord in Soho offered us the chance to buy the flat for 140k - we were kids really with no family money behind us, so we couldn't do it. A few months later, he sold it for 250 to a bloke who bought both our flat and the one next door who had, in turn, just sold his flat in Highgate to Russians. Little ripples...
Definitely feels like in the short term we're going back to something like my understanding of prewar London, where a lot of housing stock ended up as boarding houses, with vast numbers of people just going out to work and coming home to single rented rooms, forever.
Longer term that will be the undoing of it all, and London will be a pretty fascinating case study. I go past Nine Elms a lot these days, and I don't know even how many of those places have sold, or remotely held their value if they did. (Obviously, no-one's actually living in them either way.) Martin Scorsese said something really interesting about the similar spread of glass and steel towers all over New York, which is their shiny splendour depends on someone being prepared to pay for them to be washed and looked after. Once they cut their losses, who knows...? [Post edited 18 Dec 2019 11:04]
|  | | |
| Good Luck UK on 11:05 - Dec 18 with 1470 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Good Luck UK on 10:47 - Dec 18 by loftboy |
On the leaving school at 14, kids today want to go to uni then go straight into a top job, my dad started at 14 as an office junior on a few shillings a week and worked his way up to a junior buyer then to senior buyer he eventually became head of Lockheed’s purchasing dept in the uk, the first non American to get it, he got this through gaining experience in the work place which absolutely can’t be achieved at Uni.
A bit controversial but I don’t think as many people should be going to uni as there are, the apprenticeship programme needs to be ramped up and companies need to start taking responsibility for training the next generation. Would get more people onto the tax system earlier this generating more income whilst giving people valuable work experience. |
I don't think that is controversial at all mate, I think it is spot on. And I am talking as one whose sons have both gone to uni.
The number of people going to uni should be dictated by the number required to fill the jobs there are for them not some arbitrary 50% target. All it does is lead to disappointment for those that have a degree but can't find a job. And at the same time there are shortages of skills in other areas. It is barmy. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Good Luck UK on 11:37 - Dec 18 with 1403 views | stevec |
Yourself and Loftboy hit the nail on the head.
We were sold the idea of private pensions and all was going fine until Gordon Brown dipped his fingers in and literally stole pensions from the very people who are now voting Tory in their millions, we don't forget. My private pension fund, based on year on year growth was in 1997 predicted to be SIX TIMES bigger than it was by 2010 when those thieves were finally relieved of office. I should mention funds were well down long before the financial crash.
As for the working classes, you have to ask why Brown also kept the free pay before tax at a touch over £5000 year after year, refusing to increase it when it was the most effective way a government can help those who are hard up on a working wage. Note under the Tories that is now nearly £12500 before tax is payable.
As ever, Labour love to deal in prophecy while the rest of us have to deal with reality. You get the feeling they rather enjoy losing elections, that way they never get tested. |  | | |
| Good Luck UK on 11:38 - Dec 18 with 1400 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
State Pension is not a benefit, I hate that's it's being portrayed as such. |  |
| |
| Good Luck UK on 11:41 - Dec 18 with 1826 views | Mick_S |
| Good Luck UK on 20:28 - Dec 17 by Konk |
Absolutely. All of those areas I've listed, and you can lob Finsbury Park, Stroud Green and Stoke Newington into the mix as well.
Before we moved, we generally liked living down our street, but with a kid on the way, we would have needed to find £650-700k for a 3 bedroom house, with one of those bedrooms being a box room. Mental. Even if we could have borrowed that money, £700k to live in an area with loads of social problems, struggling schools etc? As it was, we sold our 2 bedroom flat in Wood Green for more than we spent on a 3 double bedroom Victorian house in a 'nice' area of a great city, so for us it was a fairly obvious move. If we could have bought a house for £400k (bargain) in N22, though, we probably wouldn't have even thought about moving. The clincher for me was the thought that unless my son ends up earning mega money, there's a good chance he would never be able to afford a house in his hometown or stay in the area where he'd grown-up (good job we moved to one of the most expensive cities outside of London...) |
Quite a few of our friends ( us too ) with kids in their 20's are waiting to see where their sons and daughters end up moving to ie out of London, before thinking about where their next move will be, so it looks like you got in early! |  |
| Did I ever mention that I was in Minder? |
| |
| Good Luck UK on 11:43 - Dec 18 with 1823 views | BostonR |
| Good Luck UK on 16:02 - Dec 17 by derbyhoop |
Boris wants to enshrine in law that there will be no extension to the transition period.
This has all the makings of May's red lines, limiting his room for manoeuvre and making it harder to get a deal that works for him (or the UK).
I have an image of Sir Humphrey posing the question "do you think that is wise, Prime Minister?".
A DexEU report suggested the complexity of the Irish Protocol could hold up the entire free trade agreement. "Delivery of the required infrastructure, associated systems, and staffing to implement the requirements of the [Irish] protocol by December 2020 represents a major strategic, political and operational challenge," it said.
That sounds like Civil Service speak for it's impossible.
Having worked in IT for 40+ years I am well aware that the Government's ability to develop large, complex projects within a reasonable timescale and budget is non-existent. Add in that nobody can, yet, specify how it is going to work and you have a recipe for a major botch job. |
This is politics by Johnson.
Yes, they will pass a law stating no extension, but given the majority they have they can easily repeal such a law, which I think they will have to do.
It is going to be an interesting 2020.
I work in the re-investment world and we all know that it is going to be financially impossible to achieve Brexit and meet the investment promises, that were made during the election. The complexity around compliance and audit regs in leaving the EU is a 4yr project that will cost this country billions of £'s.
Something has to give and those labour voters in the heartlands are going to be very disappointed.
I predict that the Tories over a 5yr period will raise borrowing in this country to a level not seen before. A financial shit-storm is coming! |  | | |
| Good Luck UK on 11:49 - Dec 18 with 1794 views | Watford_Ranger |
| Good Luck UK on 11:43 - Dec 18 by BostonR |
This is politics by Johnson.
Yes, they will pass a law stating no extension, but given the majority they have they can easily repeal such a law, which I think they will have to do.
It is going to be an interesting 2020.
I work in the re-investment world and we all know that it is going to be financially impossible to achieve Brexit and meet the investment promises, that were made during the election. The complexity around compliance and audit regs in leaving the EU is a 4yr project that will cost this country billions of £'s.
Something has to give and those labour voters in the heartlands are going to be very disappointed.
I predict that the Tories over a 5yr period will raise borrowing in this country to a level not seen before. A financial shit-storm is coming! |
The party of sound economic management? You’re surely mistaken. |  | | |
| Good Luck UK on 11:57 - Dec 18 with 1773 views | BostonR |
| Good Luck UK on 11:49 - Dec 18 by Watford_Ranger |
The party of sound economic management? You’re surely mistaken. |
Indeed.
What price that Boris looks for a softer Brexit landing? He can ditch the lunatics in the ERG and still get a majority for his deal. Staying closer to the EU will allow him some financial relief say over a 4yr period (getting Brexit done, albeit slowly) and focusing any borrowing on improving the Northern powerhouse.
It's a gamble, but I sense that maybe the direction of travel. | | | |
| Good Luck UK on 12:00 - Dec 18 with 1762 views | DannytheR |
| Good Luck UK on 11:43 - Dec 18 by BostonR |
This is politics by Johnson.
Yes, they will pass a law stating no extension, but given the majority they have they can easily repeal such a law, which I think they will have to do.
It is going to be an interesting 2020.
I work in the re-investment world and we all know that it is going to be financially impossible to achieve Brexit and meet the investment promises, that were made during the election. The complexity around compliance and audit regs in leaving the EU is a 4yr project that will cost this country billions of £'s.
Something has to give and those labour voters in the heartlands are going to be very disappointed.
I predict that the Tories over a 5yr period will raise borrowing in this country to a level not seen before. A financial shit-storm is coming! |
Never mind the heartlands, everyone outside London has a surprise in store about Johnsonomics.
By the time he left office as mayor, he'd spent the best part of a billion of Londoners money on the garden bridge, the estuary airport, the cable cars, the sauna-like Routemasters, West Ham's stadium, and so on. And then he fkd off back to Parliament.
There we go. Now everyone else can join us elitists in coughing up for the bloke who never gets his round in. | | | |
| Good Luck UK on 12:04 - Dec 18 with 1750 views | Arty |
| Good Luck UK on 10:47 - Dec 18 by loftboy |
On the leaving school at 14, kids today want to go to uni then go straight into a top job, my dad started at 14 as an office junior on a few shillings a week and worked his way up to a junior buyer then to senior buyer he eventually became head of Lockheed’s purchasing dept in the uk, the first non American to get it, he got this through gaining experience in the work place which absolutely can’t be achieved at Uni.
A bit controversial but I don’t think as many people should be going to uni as there are, the apprenticeship programme needs to be ramped up and companies need to start taking responsibility for training the next generation. Would get more people onto the tax system earlier this generating more income whilst giving people valuable work experience. |
Thoroughly agree re Uni. Brothers step daughter took A levels, then a 1 year foundation course, then went travelling for another year before starting a 3 year degree in Fine Art. She graduated this summer, and has dossed around with ex Uni friends since, hasn’t a clue what she wants to do in life and this at an age of 25. No comprehension of finances, cost of living etc, fed, housed and watered free of charge as her mother thinks the sun shines out of her ar5e.
She does though get of her ar5e to attend extinction rebellion protests and has been leafleting for Labour. Which is quite funny as my brother is a died in the wool true blue Tory.
Time to get rid of the poncy degrees and get apprenticeships and people into the real world | | | |
| Good Luck UK on 12:04 - Dec 18 with 1745 views | francisbowles |
| Good Luck UK on 11:05 - Dec 18 by CroydonCaptJack |
I don't think that is controversial at all mate, I think it is spot on. And I am talking as one whose sons have both gone to uni.
The number of people going to uni should be dictated by the number required to fill the jobs there are for them not some arbitrary 50% target. All it does is lead to disappointment for those that have a degree but can't find a job. And at the same time there are shortages of skills in other areas. It is barmy. |
I agree in principle with the point but the problem is that an industry has been created with the old polys being given university status.
The main problem for me is the whole student loans fiasco.
I have one daughter on the, last year of plan1, £3000 a year tuition fee scheme paying back on earnings over £18330 for a 25 yr period.
My other daughter, who is younger is on plan2, £9000 a year tuition fee scheme paying back on earnings over £25000 for a 30 yr period.
Interest has been added at a minimum of RPI, last year 2.4%, since the first day they received their first installment during their first term at university. It is probably unlikely that they will ever pay the whole debt off.
The perception however is that they have massive debts which continue to grow and they are sent a frightening statement each year to highlight this.
The system is run by the student loans company who are both unfair and inept. The system is complicated, confusing and has lead people to make catastrophic decisions both financially and in terms of their career.
Some well meaning parents and grand parents, have made the decision not to saddle their offspring with these debts and have either not applied for a loan or paid it off. In many cases catastrophically the wrong financial decision, as if the older generation wanted to help their youngsters, it almost certainly would be better to put that money into savings such as a help to buy Isa.
Other kids have decided not to go to university or worse still dropped out at some stage meaning they have a student debt anyway.
This is before you get onto grants, which don't have to be paid back. The lower the parental income, the bigger the grant. A system which it is possible to manipulate to your advantage if you can defer earnings in some way, such as pension contributions or black economy methods.
This has a perceived effect of making young people feel that they have an advantage/disadvantage when they enter the workplace.
Corbyn said he was going to end the system and write off the debts. Then he looked at the costs and sometime later said he couldn't do the latter part. So again that would be unfair on those who have the debt and they all have a vote whereas future students don't.
If any party wants to radically change this system then surely a fairer way would be to write off the debt and make ALL graduates pay a tax, at something similar to the current loan repayments rates. This would include anybody who has ever graduated, irrespective of whether they ever had a loan, grant or how long ago it was.
Obviously, I haven't costed this but you would have no student debt, a large chunk of which is or will be written off anyway, no interest being added to loan accounts, no relations making large wrong financial decisions and more people paying in as well as nil cost of the student loan company to offset any lost revenue.
A fairly radical change and a fairer system for graduates and tax payers, as well as a level playing field when both deciding if university is for you and when graduates enter the job market. [Post edited 18 Dec 2019 14:40]
| | | |
| Good Luck UK on 12:16 - Dec 18 with 1715 views | AnonymousR |
| Good Luck UK on 10:47 - Dec 18 by loftboy |
On the leaving school at 14, kids today want to go to uni then go straight into a top job, my dad started at 14 as an office junior on a few shillings a week and worked his way up to a junior buyer then to senior buyer he eventually became head of Lockheed’s purchasing dept in the uk, the first non American to get it, he got this through gaining experience in the work place which absolutely can’t be achieved at Uni.
A bit controversial but I don’t think as many people should be going to uni as there are, the apprenticeship programme needs to be ramped up and companies need to start taking responsibility for training the next generation. Would get more people onto the tax system earlier this generating more income whilst giving people valuable work experience. |
How would they be 'ramped up'? There are limits placed on employers in how they may use the Apprenticeship Levy (AL). These include:
The AL may not be used for salaries, only training costs.
The AL may only be used with approved suppliers which are (in some cases) prohibitive in location or offer.
20% of an apprentice's time must be 'learning' The AL may not be used to top this up.
The new standards of apprenticeships are not extensive.
There are not enough suppliers to meet demand in some aprenticeships.
The endpoint assessment of an apprentice can't be carried out by the supplier delivering the learning and equate to up to 25% of the AL fee. This means it's not cost-effective for colleges and local suppliers to offer apprenticeships.
Few suppliers are digitally literate to offer 21st-century learning experience.
There are 3 broad groups of employers in respect of AL. The first group are engaging with them to try and make them work for new entries. This group is very small. The second group are using the AL to fund internal learning programmes and moving budget from internal training to AL funded programmes. This attracts a productivity cost of 20% of existing employees. The last group just accepts the AL as a tax which, if unsued in 24 months, goes back to HM Treasury. |  | | |
| Good Luck UK on 12:18 - Dec 18 with 1709 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
My niece joined the gov treasury last year, they paid her a big bonus (unheard of) for spotting a major feck up that would have cost Millions.
One of the papers will be doing an interview with her soon as she is the first to have joined the treasury without going to Ox/Cam but Honors in law degree.
I'll have a word and see if she can sort out some dosh for you all just don't hold your breath. [Post edited 18 Dec 2019 12:36]
| |
| |
| Good Luck UK on 12:28 - Dec 18 with 1684 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
Thornberry has put herself up for the leader  and Starmer looks like he will.
Dead parrots. | |
| |
| Good Luck UK on 12:32 - Dec 18 with 1681 views | BlackCrowe |
| Good Luck UK on 12:04 - Dec 18 by francisbowles |
I agree in principle with the point but the problem is that an industry has been created with the old polys being given university status.
The main problem for me is the whole student loans fiasco.
I have one daughter on the, last year of plan1, £3000 a year tuition fee scheme paying back on earnings over £18330 for a 25 yr period.
My other daughter, who is younger is on plan2, £9000 a year tuition fee scheme paying back on earnings over £25000 for a 30 yr period.
Interest has been added at a minimum of RPI, last year 2.4%, since the first day they received their first installment during their first term at university. It is probably unlikely that they will ever pay the whole debt off.
The perception however is that they have massive debts which continue to grow and they are sent a frightening statement each year to highlight this.
The system is run by the student loans company who are both unfair and inept. The system is complicated, confusing and has lead people to make catastrophic decisions both financially and in terms of their career.
Some well meaning parents and grand parents, have made the decision not to saddle their offspring with these debts and have either not applied for a loan or paid it off. In many cases catastrophically the wrong financial decision, as if the older generation wanted to help their youngsters, it almost certainly would be better to put that money into savings such as a help to buy Isa.
Other kids have decided not to go to university or worse still dropped out at some stage meaning they have a student debt anyway.
This is before you get onto grants, which don't have to be paid back. The lower the parental income, the bigger the grant. A system which it is possible to manipulate to your advantage if you can defer earnings in some way, such as pension contributions or black economy methods.
This has a perceived effect of making young people feel that they have an advantage/disadvantage when they enter the workplace.
Corbyn said he was going to end the system and write off the debts. Then he looked at the costs and sometime later said he couldn't do the latter part. So again that would be unfair on those who have the debt and they all have a vote whereas future students don't.
If any party wants to radically change this system then surely a fairer way would be to write off the debt and make ALL graduates pay a tax, at something similar to the current loan repayments rates. This would include anybody who has ever graduated, irrespective of whether they ever had a loan, grant or how long ago it was.
Obviously, I haven't costed this but you would have no student debt, a large chunk of which is or will be written off anyway, no interest being added to loan accounts, no relations making large wrong financial decisions and more people paying in as well as nil cost of the student loan company to offset any lost revenue.
A fairly radical change and a fairer system for graduates and tax payers, as well as a level playing field when both deciding if university is for you and when graduates enter the job market. [Post edited 18 Dec 2019 14:40]
|
The problem with ex-Ply Universities now is that they are desperate for students and their tuition fees. Young Crowe applied to four earlier this year and his first choice had stringent requirement on A level/BTEC UCAS points to get in but the others (all good places) gave unconditional offers as long as he put them as their first choice (he didn't).
So basically he could've failed all his exams in grand style and he was still in. Madness. |  |
| |
| Good Luck UK on 12:58 - Dec 18 with 1643 views | MrSheen |
| Good Luck UK on 12:32 - Dec 18 by BlackCrowe |
The problem with ex-Ply Universities now is that they are desperate for students and their tuition fees. Young Crowe applied to four earlier this year and his first choice had stringent requirement on A level/BTEC UCAS points to get in but the others (all good places) gave unconditional offers as long as he put them as their first choice (he didn't).
So basically he could've failed all his exams in grand style and he was still in. Madness. |
A similar story from a friend of mine. One of her sons basically stopped going to school in sixth form. Instead of three A levels, they agreed to let him do two. He got an E in one, and didn't turn up for the other one. His parents pleaded with the school to take him back for a year to do retakes and that he had learned his lesson. He applied to colleges after a few weeks and was given an unconditional offer to quite a well-respected ex-Poly, at which point he abandoned his retakes. Surprisingly enough, after three school years of barely any effort and even less interest, his university career ended after one term of non-attendance. |  | | |
| Good Luck UK on 12:59 - Dec 18 with 1637 views | BostonR |
| Good Luck UK on 12:00 - Dec 18 by DannytheR |
Never mind the heartlands, everyone outside London has a surprise in store about Johnsonomics.
By the time he left office as mayor, he'd spent the best part of a billion of Londoners money on the garden bridge, the estuary airport, the cable cars, the sauna-like Routemasters, West Ham's stadium, and so on. And then he fkd off back to Parliament.
There we go. Now everyone else can join us elitists in coughing up for the bloke who never gets his round in. |
And so it begins.
Matt Hancock now rolling back on the pledge to support more new nurses with their training. Buckle up for a wild ride in 2020. | | | |
| Good Luck UK on 13:07 - Dec 18 with 1616 views | DannytheR |
| Good Luck UK on 12:32 - Dec 18 by BlackCrowe |
The problem with ex-Ply Universities now is that they are desperate for students and their tuition fees. Young Crowe applied to four earlier this year and his first choice had stringent requirement on A level/BTEC UCAS points to get in but the others (all good places) gave unconditional offers as long as he put them as their first choice (he didn't).
So basically he could've failed all his exams in grand style and he was still in. Madness. |
If you set up *everything* like a private business - including education - then everything acts like a private business, including endlessly trying to create new customers. | | | |
| Good Luck UK on 13:08 - Dec 18 with 1605 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| Good Luck UK on 12:59 - Dec 18 by BostonR |
And so it begins.
Matt Hancock now rolling back on the pledge to support more new nurses with their training. Buckle up for a wild ride in 2020. |
15K on strike in NI | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
