The thing is, if a child genuinely needs specialist provision only available in the private sector then that should be funded by the state (this happens in Scotland, certainly, though it's relatively rare). In many cases I suspect it's not quite as straightforward as that, with the reasons for going private being a mix of parental preferences and meeting the child's needs (and plenty of parents of non-SEND children would say they're going private to meet their child's needs). Continuing to subsidise the minority of parents of SEND kids who can afford 83% of the cost of private education rather than funding provision that everyone who need it can access is bonkers.
The thing is, if a child genuinely needs specialist provision only available in the private sector then that should be funded by the state (this happens in Scotland, certainly, though it's relatively rare). In many cases I suspect it's not quite as straightforward as that, with the reasons for going private being a mix of parental preferences and meeting the child's needs (and plenty of parents of non-SEND children would say they're going private to meet their child's needs). Continuing to subsidise the minority of parents of SEND kids who can afford 83% of the cost of private education rather than funding provision that everyone who need it can access is bonkers.
Ok, now do children with SEND provision that the state is paying for the delivery of through private schools because of lack of capacity in their part of the state sector (usually county).
But where the SEND children are not the majority of the children, but it’s the sort of 4th division private school that has kept its head above water because of the SEND children but is now closing because so many of the non-SEND parents have had to withdraw their children because they can’t pay the increased fees…
The sort of schools which are a heady mix of local authority funded SEND children and children of those who can just about afford the fees (but there’s no particular academic distinction - usually small independent day schools) are the eye of the storm here - councils in England spend £3.7bn annually on funding SEND pupils at independent schools.
Basically demand for special assistance has far outstripped state provision (that in any case had been shrunken by cuts) so it’s *increasingly* the case that the independent schools were picking up the slack on government money. But when the school closes (as two are now doing locally to me) the funding stream that was paying for their places won’t build or pay for a state special school.
The thing is, if a child genuinely needs specialist provision only available in the private sector then that should be funded by the state (this happens in Scotland, certainly, though it's relatively rare). In many cases I suspect it's not quite as straightforward as that, with the reasons for going private being a mix of parental preferences and meeting the child's needs (and plenty of parents of non-SEND children would say they're going private to meet their child's needs). Continuing to subsidise the minority of parents of SEND kids who can afford 83% of the cost of private education rather than funding provision that everyone who need it can access is bonkers.
Ok, now do children with SEND provision that the state is paying for the delivery of through private schools because of lack of capacity in their part of the state sector (usually county).
But where the SEND children are not the majority of the children, but it’s the sort of 4th division private school that has kept its head above water because of the SEND children but is now closing because so many of the non-SEND parents have had to withdraw their children because they can’t pay the increased fees…
The sort of schools which are a heady mix of local authority funded SEND children and children of those who can just about afford the fees (but there’s no particular academic distinction - usually small independent day schools) are the eye of the storm here - councils in England spend £3.7bn annually on funding SEND pupils at independent schools.
Name a school in that situation.
As far as I know the private SEND schools are typically specialist charitable institutions that are set up specifically for the needs of SEND children. I doubt any of this type of school has any non-SEND children.
A blind school doesn't somehow accept non-blind children because middle class parents think that this might be a way to get an advantage.
"4th division private schools" may well have SEND children but I highly doubt that local authorities are paying for them to go there.
And it's also a vicious cycle where the academy system in particular fails SEND kids so badly (via exclusion and discrimination as well as lack of provision) and local authorities don't have the funding to provide alternative provision. And so many SEND kids have parents who are also disabled, and just not able to homeschool even if they wanted to (not that non-disabled parents necessarily can do it either but ykwim) and don't have the energy to sue the local authority.
Aside from the issue of SEND provision, academies are just Not Great for kids with other specific pastoral needs. Even many non-private faith schools are academies now. And I would bet anything that the really serious and concerning misogyny from even very young boys in schools now due to Andrew Tate etc is driving more parents to seek girls' schools for their daughters, and I can't say I blame them - yes there are single-sex state schools but even fewer now than when I attended one (and it may be a surprise to know that I actually think going to a girls' school was a positive thing for me). I'm not arguing that single-sex private schools should have been VAT exempt btw, just that I do understand that there are what I think are legitimate reasons to seek that option.
I am pretty confident in saying that everyone in this thread at least wants the same thing in terms of provision of the support for SEND kids (and all kids) that they need in the state sector as well as the private sector - there are enough neurodiverse people in here that we know how shit school can be when the support isn't there. But personally I think dismantling the academy system is absolutely key to SEND reform and neither Labour nor the Conservatives (don't know about the others) have any interest in doing so.
But personally I think dismantling the academy system is absolutely key to SEND reform and neither Labour nor the Conservatives (don't know about the others) have any interest in doing so.
The problem is that the process of academicisation has meant that local education authorities are denuded of the experience and expertise of running schools, and reversing this is going to be a significant project.
83% of all secondary schools in England are academies, and there's a high chance that some LAs don't manage a single secondary school, indeed playing around here seemed to find quite a few:
Though that’s a bit like not having any trade negotiators left in the run-up to post-Brexit trade negotiations. Where something is innately sensible (not Brexit, but certainly when it had happened the need to have trade negotiators) then you have to just bite the bullet and build the capability rather than using absence as a reason not to do something.
I just have to point out that having worked for a local authority for ten years, I have no confidence in the competence of local authorities.
Worst employer I've ever had.
I got out seven years ago and I'm still having nightmares!
I work for a local authority central education team, having previously been a teacher in the same authority. As an employer they've been pretty good for me (managers, on the other hand, have been a mixed bag) over 13 years and counting. I'm not always impressed by the quality of decision making, but it's stellar compared with, say, churches. Local authorities suffer from having a huge and varied set of responsibilities and not enough money to manage them, along with staff shortages in key areas like social work and educational psychology.
Lack of money to manage all the responsibilities local authorities have isn't the only problem, and potentially is a symptom of a deeper problem. There's a strong tendency among the political parties that have formed our national governments for decades to centralise power, and treat local authorities as definitely inferior. A view that's commonly shared by the mass media (who tend to ignore local politics), and also the members of most parties who would see serving in Parliament as more important than serving in local government - in some cases resulting in more talented individuals leaving local government for national Parliaments, and it being common that any Parliamentary election is followed by local by-elections with a more rapid turn over of councillors. One of the consequences is that national governments often see funding for local authorities as a soft target, and these budgets end up being among the first that get cut with the consequences then not right at the door of national governments (hence why I say that lack of money is a symptom of a deeper issue). It also means that pay for council staff is lower than comparable roles in national civil service, which again leads to movement of talent from local authorities to the centre. Too often local authorities are not given the support they need, not just money but also in recruitment and training of staff and access to the best legal advice and other support.
Academies are a very tangible expression of this view, a deliberate move to take schools from the control of local authorities.
Yes, certainly I'm aware of how huge a task dismantling academisation would be. And I know there are academies that do a good job, but as a system it is so heavily weighted against SEND pupils and other groups experiencing discrimination (I know for eg that Black and Muslim students often come up against racist policies wrt hair and facial for example).
Yes, certainly I'm aware of how huge a task dismantling academisation would be.
Yeah, to be clear I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be done; it's just that it runs against multiple trends in government at the moment (when even the ostensible 'centre-left' are taken with ideas like DOGE).
Yes, certainly I'm aware of how huge a task dismantling academisation would be.
Yeah, to be clear I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be done; it's just that it runs against multiple trends in government at the moment (when even the ostensible 'centre-left' are taken with ideas like DOGE).
Oh totally, that's why imo *some* of the measures targeting private education are short-sighted. I've never personally been in private education but I have been up close to enough of them to know how diverse private education is. Yes, it's a minority of children being educated there, but it's not all Eton and cathedral choir schools.
The government negotiated a one in one out policy with France over immigration. I guess this is sensible but still pandering to Reform types somewhat.
50 a week though apparently. 700 arrived yesterday. Whether or not you agree with the principle of the agreement, even a hard of thinking Faragist will probably rightly recognise this agreement as a joke.
I mean, I don’t even agree with the principle and my gut reaction even so is still ‘is that honestly the best you could do?’
Even when they set themselves up as a Reform tribute act it’s all so depressingly *amateurish*
In fact, it’s worse than amateurish - it’s conceding (in the most tokenistic of ways) Reform’s point, while acting on it in the most half hearted way imaginable. Which is an invitation/permission for a party to offer to do it ‘properly’ - and so the ratchet tightens.
It's amazing that I now live in a country which has a thing (really a group of things) that can't be said. It's even illegal apparently to refer to the thing that can't be said.
Elsewhere, apparently, it is absolutely fine to call someone who has fought against racism for decades a racist.
It's all about Trump, unfortunately. A good proportion of the thinking behind the Labour government is about how to get/keep Trump sweet.
It is absolutely not. They would be this way regardless. Why do you think Trump gives a damn? He doesn't.
I don't think there is much thought within the Trump administration. The point isn't about the facts (in other words whether Trump really gives a damn about what happens in Britain) but whether British politicians in Downing Street think he does.
There hasn't been much time for either administration, and the British government are trying to do the impossible - second guess Trump.
The UK Government (of all parties) over the last 4 decades or so has upheld a fiction about a "special relationship" between the UK and US. The current Government is no different, and also faces the additional challenge of a media that has always accused the Labour Party of being willing to jeopardise the special relationship, forcing the Labour leadership and Labour Governments to bend over backwards to show they are supporting this "special relationship" - even though that relationship is distinctly one-sided and rarely (if ever) recognised by the US Government.
It's all about Trump, unfortunately. A good proportion of the thinking behind the Labour government is about how to get/keep Trump sweet.
It is absolutely not. They would be this way regardless. Why do you think Trump gives a damn? He doesn't.
I don't think there is much thought within the Trump administration. The point isn't about the facts (in other words whether Trump really gives a damn about what happens in Britain) but whether British politicians in Downing Street think he does.
But none of the things you mention are down to how the government fears it might be viewed by Trump. Take the proscription of Palestine Action, that is of a piece with the manner in which they proscribed certain leftist groupuscles in order to take down factional enemies within the PLP. The playbook Cooper has followed was identical to that laid out in a report by a thinktank formerly headed by Luke Akehurst (member of the NEC and leading light of Labour Together - the faction behind Starmer).
"In an accompanying report, it stated: “In July 2022, the group was investigated under counter-terrorism protocols following intelligence suggesting contact between some of its members and individuals linked to Hamas-aligned networks abroad (see: Metropolitan Police briefing, classified).
“While the investigation yielded no direct terror charges, it underscored the degree of concern shared by law enforcement agencies over Palestine Action’s increasingly radicalised behaviour.”
It is not clear how or why We Believe in Israel was granted access to classified documents."
Interestingly, right after this article went online the report vanished from the thinktank website, but the reasoning Cooper used when applying for the proscription used identical wording - namely that while none of the actions fell under the definition of terrorism, the 'net effect' could be construed as such (Madoc Cairns has a few threads on this topic https://x.com/MadocCairns/status/1941266584955396498 ).
It's all about Trump, unfortunately. A good proportion of the thinking behind the Labour government is about how to get/keep Trump sweet.
It is absolutely not. They would be this way regardless. Why do you think Trump gives a damn? He doesn't.
I don't think there is much thought within the Trump administration. The point isn't about the facts (in other words whether Trump really gives a damn about what happens in Britain) but whether British politicians in Downing Street think he does.
But none of the things you mention are down to how the government fears it might be viewed by Trump. Take the proscription of Palestine Action, that is of a piece with the manner in which they proscribed certain leftist groupuscles in order to take down factional enemies within the PLP. The playbook Cooper has followed was identical to that laid out in a report by a thinktank formerly headed by Luke Akehurst (member of the NEC and leading light of Labour Together - the faction behind Starmer).
"In an accompanying report, it stated: “In July 2022, the group was investigated under counter-terrorism protocols following intelligence suggesting contact between some of its members and individuals linked to Hamas-aligned networks abroad (see: Metropolitan Police briefing, classified).
“While the investigation yielded no direct terror charges, it underscored the degree of concern shared by law enforcement agencies over Palestine Action’s increasingly radicalised behaviour.”
It is not clear how or why We Believe in Israel was granted access to classified documents."
Interestingly, right after this article went online the report vanished from the thinktank website, but the reasoning Cooper used when applying for the proscription used identical wording - namely that while none of the actions fell under the definition of terrorism, the 'net effect' could be construed as such (Madoc Cairns has a few threads on this topic https://x.com/MadocCairns/status/1941266584955396498 ).
I can't help you understand why it might be seen as necessary to reduce the amount of protestors on the streets when Trump visits.
It's all about Trump, unfortunately. A good proportion of the thinking behind the Labour government is about how to get/keep Trump sweet.
It is absolutely not. They would be this way regardless. Why do you think Trump gives a damn? He doesn't.
I don't think there is much thought within the Trump administration. The point isn't about the facts (in other words whether Trump really gives a damn about what happens in Britain) but whether British politicians in Downing Street think he does.
But none of the things you mention are down to how the government fears it might be viewed by Trump. Take the proscription of Palestine Action, that is of a piece with the manner in which they proscribed certain leftist groupuscles in order to take down factional enemies within the PLP. The playbook Cooper has followed was identical to that laid out in a report by a thinktank formerly headed by Luke Akehurst (member of the NEC and leading light of Labour Together - the faction behind Starmer).
"In an accompanying report, it stated: “In July 2022, the group was investigated under counter-terrorism protocols following intelligence suggesting contact between some of its members and individuals linked to Hamas-aligned networks abroad (see: Metropolitan Police briefing, classified).
“While the investigation yielded no direct terror charges, it underscored the degree of concern shared by law enforcement agencies over Palestine Action’s increasingly radicalised behaviour.”
It is not clear how or why We Believe in Israel was granted access to classified documents."
Interestingly, right after this article went online the report vanished from the thinktank website, but the reasoning Cooper used when applying for the proscription used identical wording - namely that while none of the actions fell under the definition of terrorism, the 'net effect' could be construed as such (Madoc Cairns has a few threads on this topic https://x.com/MadocCairns/status/1941266584955396498 ).
I can't help you understand why it might be seen as necessary to reduce the amount of protestors on the streets when Trump visits.
The two things can be true at the same time.
They may be; but your initial premise was "It's all about Trump, unfortunately."
And Labour under Starmer are naturally authoritarian - remember that as opposition they nodded through the Overseas Operations Bill and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill (they'd have done the same with the Police, Crime and Sentencing bill but for the furore triggered by the Sarah Everard protestors), and there's little or no difference between their tone pre and post November 2024.
It's all about Trump, unfortunately. A good proportion of the thinking behind the Labour government is about how to get/keep Trump sweet.
It is absolutely not. They would be this way regardless. Why do you think Trump gives a damn? He doesn't.
I don't think there is much thought within the Trump administration. The point isn't about the facts (in other words whether Trump really gives a damn about what happens in Britain) but whether British politicians in Downing Street think he does.
But none of the things you mention are down to how the government fears it might be viewed by Trump. Take the proscription of Palestine Action, that is of a piece with the manner in which they proscribed certain leftist groupuscles in order to take down factional enemies within the PLP. The playbook Cooper has followed was identical to that laid out in a report by a thinktank formerly headed by Luke Akehurst (member of the NEC and leading light of Labour Together - the faction behind Starmer).
"In an accompanying report, it stated: “In July 2022, the group was investigated under counter-terrorism protocols following intelligence suggesting contact between some of its members and individuals linked to Hamas-aligned networks abroad (see: Metropolitan Police briefing, classified).
“While the investigation yielded no direct terror charges, it underscored the degree of concern shared by law enforcement agencies over Palestine Action’s increasingly radicalised behaviour.”
It is not clear how or why We Believe in Israel was granted access to classified documents."
Interestingly, right after this article went online the report vanished from the thinktank website, but the reasoning Cooper used when applying for the proscription used identical wording - namely that while none of the actions fell under the definition of terrorism, the 'net effect' could be construed as such (Madoc Cairns has a few threads on this topic https://x.com/MadocCairns/status/1941266584955396498 ).
It's hard to avoid concluding that the last decade in British politics would have been measurably better had Luke Akehurst pursued a career in gardening.
On the other hand, some protestors have legitimate concerns apparently, here's Jonathan Reynolds sympathising with the cause of the protestors in Epping:
I was listening to the reports of the meeting between Starmer and Trump in Scotland and I was thinking about what it would take for Starmer to be embarrassed by his association with Trump in the future.
In the 1940s I'm guessing there were people who felt embarrassed by how close they got to Hitler.
Trump currently isn't Hitler. On a scale of autocrats, he seems somewhere between Orban and Putin.
So would Starmer be embarrassed if Trump turned out to be no worse than Putin?
Would Starmer be embarrassed if Trump ends up being no worse than Orban?
Then I was thinking that Trump has done enough things already, less than a year into the term, for Starmer to look back and feel embarrassed by it. Trump doesn't have to be as bad as anyone else, he's plenty bad enough on his own.
I was listening to the reports of the meeting between Starmer and Trump in Scotland and I was thinking about what it would take for Starmer to be embarrassed by his association with Trump in the future.
In the 1940s I'm guessing there were people who felt embarrassed by how close they got to Hitler.
Trump currently isn't Hitler. On a scale of autocrats, he seems somewhere between Orban and Putin.
So would Starmer be embarrassed if Trump turned out to be no worse than Putin?
Would Starmer be embarrassed if Trump ends up being no worse than Orban?
Then I was thinking that Trump has done enough things already, less than a year into the term, for Starmer to look back and feel embarrassed by it. Trump doesn't have to be as bad as anyone else, he's plenty bad enough on his own.
Starmer is cautiously talking to Trump. The general population is voting with their feet and trips to the US are down so much airlines have cut down the number of planes they fly to the USA from here.
Someone was arrested by police at a demonstration the other day for holding a sign which only stated facts about what was or wasn't illegal. It actually was a joke from Private Eye.
Someone was arrested by police at a demonstration the other day for holding a sign which only stated facts about what was or wasn't illegal. It actually was a joke from Private Eye.
The entire purpose of the legislation was to have a chilling effect on pro-Palestinian protests, it's fairly standard that the police will take this kind of thing as a license to push the boundaries.
The new online protection act seems to be a disaster. The government did not take into account VPNs. People are using them to get round the new rules. The government may not have to worry too much as Visa, Mastercard and other payment groups are starting to reject payments from certain sites. This is following a case where one woman sued an adult site for the abuse she experienced and I think it was Visa for taking payments.
The new online protection act seems to be a disaster. The government did not take into account VPNs. People are using them to get round the new rules. The government may not have to worry too much as Visa, Mastercard and other payment groups are starting to reject payments from certain sites. This is following a case where one woman sued an adult site for the abuse she experienced and I think it was Visa for taking payments.
That's already been happening for a long time and amongst other things puts sex workers in danger by removing their ability to work online rather than in person.
The new online protection act seems to be a disaster. The government did not take into account VPNs. People are using them to get round the new rules. The government may not have to worry too much as Visa, Mastercard and other payment groups are starting to reject payments from certain sites. This is following a case where one woman sued an adult site for the abuse she experienced and I think it was Visa for taking payments.
That's already been happening for a long time and amongst other things puts sex workers in danger by removing their ability to work online rather than in person.
And a lot of LGBTQ+ content far short of sex work falls foul of their policies. Interestingly Valve have started to push back against the payment processors on this.
Also it should be said that a lot of people already have VPNs and have done for quite a while - VPNs commonly sponsor popular Youtubers, podcasters etc so anyone who is online enough to listen to a podcast that has sponsorship (ie not the BBC etc) is aware of them existing. Since the Balkanisation of streaming services a lot of people simply switched to a VPN and pirating shows/movies for instance.
The new online protection act seems to be a disaster. The government did not take into account VPNs. People are using them to get round the new rules.
The legislation was originally set in train by the Johnson government, at the time questions were raised around how this would work. The implementation under Starmer's government is fairly leaden, not amenable to much subtlety and is going to lead to further consolidation of the internet.
Apart from anything else, getting people into the habit of giving out personal information to dozens of somewhat flim-flam identity verification companies is a terrible idea (the uptick in VPN usage should be seen in part as representing the public's understandable reluctance to do so), and is very probably going to lead to a massive data leak down the line.
The new online protection act seems to be a disaster. The government did not take into account VPNs. People are using them to get round the new rules.
The legislation was originally set in train by the Johnson government, at the time questions were raised around how this would work. The implementation under Starmer's government is fairly leaden, not amenable to much subtlety and is going to lead to further consolidation of the internet.
Apart from anything else, getting people into the habit of giving out personal information to dozens of somewhat flim-flam identity verification companies is a terrible idea (the uptick in VPN usage should be seen in part as representing the public's understandable reluctance to do so), and is very probably going to lead to a massive data leak down the line.
Yes I know it is as a Johnson policy. So yes the Labour implementation has been heavy handed.
As I understand it VPN subscriptions have risen massively due to the law.
It's curious to me how the Labour government seems to be prepared to use the nonsense language of the right on migration.
It's just not true that migrants are criminals. It's just not true that most are "illegals" arriving by boat. It's not true that they're the cause of high levels of crime or long queues at A&E.
I guess you might expect this nonsense from the shock-jock whose name begins with F and ends with Arage, but why is the Labour government giving it oxygen?
Because this is what the Labour Right believe -- you just need to look at the MPs they parachuted into seats like Dover.
It also gels with their strategy of targeting so-called 'hero voters' (voters who live in small towns/suburbs who can be persuaded to switch from Tory to Labour).
That's already been happening for a long time and amongst other things puts sex workers in danger by removing their ability to work online rather than in person.
I'm not really familiar with this particular field of endeavour, but are you suggesting that there's a substitution effect between in-person prostitution and performing sex acts on demand over video for a paying client's viewing pleasure? I would have assumed that the latter had much more in common with porn than with prostitution, but maybe that's naive.
That's already been happening for a long time and amongst other things puts sex workers in danger by removing their ability to work online rather than in person.
I'm not really familiar with this particular field of endeavour, but are you suggesting that there's a substitution effect between in-person prostitution and performing sex acts on demand over video for a paying client's viewing pleasure? I would have assumed that the latter had much more in common with porn than with prostitution, but maybe that's naive.
The bill uses the language of "inciting or controlling prostitution for gain" as one of the behaviours tech companies are supposed to look out for, sex workers have argued that this will make it harder for them to advertise online, and drive them either to the streets or work via agencies/managers who may be exploitative.
That's already been happening for a long time and amongst other things puts sex workers in danger by removing their ability to work online rather than in person.
I'm not really familiar with this particular field of endeavour, but are you suggesting that there's a substitution effect between in-person prostitution and performing sex acts on demand over video for a paying client's viewing pleasure? I would have assumed that the latter had much more in common with porn than with prostitution, but maybe that's naive.
I think it could be reasonably argued that there is a continuum. Paying for access to recorded material, paying for a live 'show' online, paying for a custom recording, paying for a 1-1 live show, paying to be physically present while content is created, paying to participate in content creation, paying for a private meeting, paying for a private sexual encounter. Only the last one would, I think, definitively be prostitution but it's easy to see how the boundaries could become fuzzy.
The suggestion that everyone opposed to the OSA is "on the side of predators and paedophiles" (as the minister responsible has said) really is appalling. I have no doubt that I would vehemently disagree with Farage as to why the OSA needs scrapping, but it will not keep children safe while also depriving adults of reasonable levels of privacy.
Are there any plans for porn being discussed/taught on as part of sex education? To me that seems like a much more pressing issue wrt child safety and porn.
A paper shop doesn’t totally hide porn mags. It puts them on the top shelf yes but they are still in plain site. They are not in a place you need ID to get in.
I find the payment companies stopping payment more problematic. How far will they go? Would they stop taking payments to some political parties the bosses don’t like?
A paper shop doesn’t totally hide porn mags. It puts them on the top shelf yes but they are still in plain site. They are not in a place you need ID to get in.
I find the payment companies stopping payment more problematic. How far will they go? Would they stop taking payments to some political parties the bosses don’t like?
Payment companies have been stopping payments to adult sites for a LONG time especially in the US, which has led to sites having to ban NSFW content (even if tagged or restricted to profiles set as 18+) in order to be listed on app stores - it's Visa and Mastercard pressuring the app stores.
Comments
Ok, now do children with SEND provision that the state is paying for the delivery of through private schools because of lack of capacity in their part of the state sector (usually county).
But where the SEND children are not the majority of the children, but it’s the sort of 4th division private school that has kept its head above water because of the SEND children but is now closing because so many of the non-SEND parents have had to withdraw their children because they can’t pay the increased fees…
The sort of schools which are a heady mix of local authority funded SEND children and children of those who can just about afford the fees (but there’s no particular academic distinction - usually small independent day schools) are the eye of the storm here - councils in England spend £3.7bn annually on funding SEND pupils at independent schools.
Both my children are in the state system btw.
Name a school in that situation.
As far as I know the private SEND schools are typically specialist charitable institutions that are set up specifically for the needs of SEND children. I doubt any of this type of school has any non-SEND children.
A blind school doesn't somehow accept non-blind children because middle class parents think that this might be a way to get an advantage.
"4th division private schools" may well have SEND children but I highly doubt that local authorities are paying for them to go there.
Aside from the issue of SEND provision, academies are just Not Great for kids with other specific pastoral needs. Even many non-private faith schools are academies now. And I would bet anything that the really serious and concerning misogyny from even very young boys in schools now due to Andrew Tate etc is driving more parents to seek girls' schools for their daughters, and I can't say I blame them - yes there are single-sex state schools but even fewer now than when I attended one (and it may be a surprise to know that I actually think going to a girls' school was a positive thing for me). I'm not arguing that single-sex private schools should have been VAT exempt btw, just that I do understand that there are what I think are legitimate reasons to seek that option.
I am pretty confident in saying that everyone in this thread at least wants the same thing in terms of provision of the support for SEND kids (and all kids) that they need in the state sector as well as the private sector - there are enough neurodiverse people in here that we know how shit school can be when the support isn't there. But personally I think dismantling the academy system is absolutely key to SEND reform and neither Labour nor the Conservatives (don't know about the others) have any interest in doing so.
The problem is that the process of academicisation has meant that local education authorities are denuded of the experience and expertise of running schools, and reversing this is going to be a significant project.
83% of all secondary schools in England are academies, and there's a high chance that some LAs don't manage a single secondary school, indeed playing around here seemed to find quite a few:
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/school-pupils-and-their-characteristics/2024-25?subjectId=c46d3214-e869-4cee-4f5c-08dd736a5cea
Though I agree with your post.
Worst employer I've ever had.
I got out seven years ago and I'm still having nightmares!
I work for a local authority central education team, having previously been a teacher in the same authority. As an employer they've been pretty good for me (managers, on the other hand, have been a mixed bag) over 13 years and counting. I'm not always impressed by the quality of decision making, but it's stellar compared with, say, churches. Local authorities suffer from having a huge and varied set of responsibilities and not enough money to manage them, along with staff shortages in key areas like social work and educational psychology.
Academies are a very tangible expression of this view, a deliberate move to take schools from the control of local authorities.
Yeah, to be clear I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be done; it's just that it runs against multiple trends in government at the moment (when even the ostensible 'centre-left' are taken with ideas like DOGE).
Oh totally, that's why imo *some* of the measures targeting private education are short-sighted. I've never personally been in private education but I have been up close to enough of them to know how diverse private education is. Yes, it's a minority of children being educated there, but it's not all Eton and cathedral choir schools.
50 a week though apparently. 700 arrived yesterday. Whether or not you agree with the principle of the agreement, even a hard of thinking Faragist will probably rightly recognise this agreement as a joke.
I mean, I don’t even agree with the principle and my gut reaction even so is still ‘is that honestly the best you could do?’
In fact, it’s worse than amateurish - it’s conceding (in the most tokenistic of ways) Reform’s point, while acting on it in the most half hearted way imaginable. Which is an invitation/permission for a party to offer to do it ‘properly’ - and so the ratchet tightens.
https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/keir-starmers-deep-regret-over-island-of-strangers-speech
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35805873/now-keir-insists-he-stands-by-island-strangers/
Elsewhere, apparently, it is absolutely fine to call someone who has fought against racism for decades a racist.
It is absolutely not. They would be this way regardless. Why do you think Trump gives a damn? He doesn't.
I don't think there is much thought within the Trump administration. The point isn't about the facts (in other words whether Trump really gives a damn about what happens in Britain) but whether British politicians in Downing Street think he does.
There hasn't been much time for either administration, and the British government are trying to do the impossible - second guess Trump.
But none of the things you mention are down to how the government fears it might be viewed by Trump. Take the proscription of Palestine Action, that is of a piece with the manner in which they proscribed certain leftist groupuscles in order to take down factional enemies within the PLP. The playbook Cooper has followed was identical to that laid out in a report by a thinktank formerly headed by Luke Akehurst (member of the NEC and leading light of Labour Together - the faction behind Starmer).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/23/ban-on-palestine-action-would-have-chilling-effect-on-other-protest-groups
"In an accompanying report, it stated: “In July 2022, the group was investigated under counter-terrorism protocols following intelligence suggesting contact between some of its members and individuals linked to Hamas-aligned networks abroad (see: Metropolitan Police briefing, classified).
“While the investigation yielded no direct terror charges, it underscored the degree of concern shared by law enforcement agencies over Palestine Action’s increasingly radicalised behaviour.”
It is not clear how or why We Believe in Israel was granted access to classified documents."
Interestingly, right after this article went online the report vanished from the thinktank website, but the reasoning Cooper used when applying for the proscription used identical wording - namely that while none of the actions fell under the definition of terrorism, the 'net effect' could be construed as such (Madoc Cairns has a few threads on this topic https://x.com/MadocCairns/status/1941266584955396498 ).
I can't help you understand why it might be seen as necessary to reduce the amount of protestors on the streets when Trump visits.
The two things can be true at the same time.
They may be; but your initial premise was "It's all about Trump, unfortunately."
And Labour under Starmer are naturally authoritarian - remember that as opposition they nodded through the Overseas Operations Bill and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill (they'd have done the same with the Police, Crime and Sentencing bill but for the furore triggered by the Sarah Everard protestors), and there's little or no difference between their tone pre and post November 2024.
It's hard to avoid concluding that the last decade in British politics would have been measurably better had Luke Akehurst pursued a career in gardening.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/24/epping-asylum-hotel-protesters-upset-legitimate-reasons-minister-says
Which The Times says are being stirred up by the far right:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/britannia-international-hotel-canary-wharf-epping-protests-dgmbl7xgq
In the 1940s I'm guessing there were people who felt embarrassed by how close they got to Hitler.
Trump currently isn't Hitler. On a scale of autocrats, he seems somewhere between Orban and Putin.
So would Starmer be embarrassed if Trump turned out to be no worse than Putin?
Would Starmer be embarrassed if Trump ends up being no worse than Orban?
Then I was thinking that Trump has done enough things already, less than a year into the term, for Starmer to look back and feel embarrassed by it. Trump doesn't have to be as bad as anyone else, he's plenty bad enough on his own.
Starmer is cautiously talking to Trump. The general population is voting with their feet and trips to the US are down so much airlines have cut down the number of planes they fly to the USA from here.
Well, at least two of his ministers have been out saying that erstwhile far right rioters ( https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/britannia-international-hotel-canary-wharf-epping-protests-dgmbl7xgq ) 'have a point':
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/24/epping-asylum-hotel-protesters-upset-legitimate-reasons-minister-says
https://bsky.app/profile/adambienkov.bsky.social/post/3luwmbo64c224
.. so if he's embarrassed it's presumably down to tone rather than content.
The entire purpose of the legislation was to have a chilling effect on pro-Palestinian protests, it's fairly standard that the police will take this kind of thing as a license to push the boundaries.
That's already been happening for a long time and amongst other things puts sex workers in danger by removing their ability to work online rather than in person.
And a lot of LGBTQ+ content far short of sex work falls foul of their policies. Interestingly Valve have started to push back against the payment processors on this.
The legislation was originally set in train by the Johnson government, at the time questions were raised around how this would work. The implementation under Starmer's government is fairly leaden, not amenable to much subtlety and is going to lead to further consolidation of the internet.
Apart from anything else, getting people into the habit of giving out personal information to dozens of somewhat flim-flam identity verification companies is a terrible idea (the uptick in VPN usage should be seen in part as representing the public's understandable reluctance to do so), and is very probably going to lead to a massive data leak down the line.
Yes I know it is as a Johnson policy. So yes the Labour implementation has been heavy handed.
As I understand it VPN subscriptions have risen massively due to the law.
It's just not true that migrants are criminals. It's just not true that most are "illegals" arriving by boat. It's not true that they're the cause of high levels of crime or long queues at A&E.
I guess you might expect this nonsense from the shock-jock whose name begins with F and ends with Arage, but why is the Labour government giving it oxygen?
It also gels with their strategy of targeting so-called 'hero voters' (voters who live in small towns/suburbs who can be persuaded to switch from Tory to Labour).
I'm not really familiar with this particular field of endeavour, but are you suggesting that there's a substitution effect between in-person prostitution and performing sex acts on demand over video for a paying client's viewing pleasure? I would have assumed that the latter had much more in common with porn than with prostitution, but maybe that's naive.
The bill uses the language of "inciting or controlling prostitution for gain" as one of the behaviours tech companies are supposed to look out for, sex workers have argued that this will make it harder for them to advertise online, and drive them either to the streets or work via agencies/managers who may be exploitative.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sex-workers-online-safety-bill-b2039044.html
Second link is from the English Collective of Prostitutes:
I think it could be reasonably argued that there is a continuum. Paying for access to recorded material, paying for a live 'show' online, paying for a custom recording, paying for a 1-1 live show, paying to be physically present while content is created, paying to participate in content creation, paying for a private meeting, paying for a private sexual encounter. Only the last one would, I think, definitively be prostitution but it's easy to see how the boundaries could become fuzzy.
Are there any plans for porn being discussed/taught on as part of sex education? To me that seems like a much more pressing issue wrt child safety and porn.
I find the payment companies stopping payment more problematic. How far will they go? Would they stop taking payments to some political parties the bosses don’t like?
Payment companies have been stopping payments to adult sites for a LONG time especially in the US, which has led to sites having to ban NSFW content (even if tagged or restricted to profiles set as 18+) in order to be listed on app stores - it's Visa and Mastercard pressuring the app stores.