Polly Toynbee.

Indeed no. For instance I formed a judgement on Liz Truss - that she was misguided and not competent to be the prime minister. But I did not feel the need to vilify her as a person.

There is no problem with people making the judgement that Meghan found royal life a problem and expressing disappointment that things did not work out; but that does not mean she should be vilified. We do not know her. We do not know what problems she is contending with.

I’d be very interested to hear what Ms Toynbee thinks will replace the constitutional monarchical system of this country. A republican system with a ‘democratically’ elected President? And all the political in fighting, corruption and elitism that exists in many such countries which purport to follow the voice of the people. Resulting in a Trump perhaps or a Putin? No system is perfect and many divide rather than unite as a monarchy attempts to do. Quite honestly, I’d be more interested in the views of a historian such as David Starkey or Simon Seborg Montefiore than in this strident and somewhat biased woman.

I’m not blank in my views. I’m simply surprised that such a level of anger, vilification can be reached about someone like Toynbee. She’s a journalist, paid to express views. I find some right wing journalists views abhorrent but can’t imagine describing them as ‘vile’ human beings

maddyone

In 2021 The London Oratory sent eighteen students to Oxbridge. Bog standard? I think not!
Blair chose The London Oratory because it was a good school. It was justified because it was a Catholic school. It was also an extremely good school that got/gets more students into Oxbridge than many minor independent schools.
Is it being argued that the reputation of The London Oratory had absolutely nothing to do with the Blair’s choice? And that it was a Catholic school was the reason?

Hardly surprising if it got more into Oxbridge than many ‘minor’ independent schools.

Plenty of minor independents will take virtually anyone whose parents are willing to pay the fees. Independents that are known for academic excellence (or at least for reasonably respectable GCSE and A level results) usually select pupils by exam, and possibly by interview, too.

So why all the fuss about independent schools Witzend? Why the wish to abolish them? Or tax them out of existence?

What a nasty woman!

Presumably because they are seen as a privilege that most people can’t afford. Even the least academic schools will typically have rather smaller classes so that less bright children, or those who struggle will - or ought to - get more help than they would at a standard state school.

Thanks for your answer Witzend. Personally I don’t have a problem with that. People can spend their money however they like. Some choose holidays, others might choose an independent school.

Witzend

maddyone

In 2021 The London Oratory sent eighteen students to Oxbridge. Bog standard? I think not!
Blair chose The London Oratory because it was a good school. It was justified because it was a Catholic school. It was also an extremely good school that got/gets more students into Oxbridge than many minor independent schools.
Is it being argued that the reputation of The London Oratory had absolutely nothing to do with the Blair’s choice? And that it was a Catholic school was the reason?

Hardly surprising if it got more into Oxbridge than many ‘minor’ independent schools.

Plenty of minor independents will take virtually anyone whose parents are willing to pay the fees. Independents that are known for academic excellence (or at least for reasonably respectable GCSE and A level results) usually select pupils by exam, and possibly by interview, too.

As I said up thread , my husband's older grandchildren at some stage went to The London Oratory, and it's sister school, so I have a little knowledge of it, certainly as it was then. It is a very strict school, pupils have to toe the line, if they didn't, parents would be summoned and they would be told in no uncertain terms how over subscribed they were, and if they didn't obey the rules they would be out. My younger son and his "niece" are pretty much the same age give or take a year or two, so they were doing A levels around the same time. When granddaughter went into the mixed sex 6th form at The London Oratory, pupils were expected to wear full school uniform complete with blazer. My son thought that was the absolute pits, he was slouching around in baggy jeans and trainers at the time. When they had a conversation about that, he said something like "I'd hate to be togged up in that uniform in the 6th form" her reply was "I don't give a damn! I just want this school to get me to where I want to be going" and it did she went on to get a first in maths at a Russell Group university. Possibly it could be argued that such a school emulates the best of the private sector, because I know and my son would retrospectively agree now that a lot of comprehensives let their pupils coast. Our children's comprehensive would be regarded as a well above average in a leafy, affluent area, and in fact in younger son's year, 4 pupils into Oxbridge, but their achievements were very much in spite of the school, not because of it. In many ways if fell short of the standards and rigour demanded by for example The Oratory which would no doubt be regarded as elitist by some, in fact 25% of its intake came from lower income demographics.

Witzend

Presumably because they are seen as a privilege that most people can’t afford. Even the least academic schools will typically have rather smaller classes so that less bright children, or those who struggle will - or ought to - get more help than they would at a standard state school.

That is all true, but the motivation for wanting them gone (although this will vary between individuals) may not be because those with money get more help, but that by definition those without get less. And worse, that there is tax relief on this advantage. If there is ever to be equal opportunity we have to start with education being equal.

Well said "Luckygirl".

That is correct Doodledog and I think no one would disagree with that if state schools get less, they shouldn’t. However parents don’t get tax relief on fees but schools mostly have charitable status, and get tax relief through that. In order to benefit from charitable status, the schools must show clearly that they are benefiting the community in some way such as community use of facilities, or grants or scholarships to poorer families.
I doubt Polly Toynbee would have had need of such a grant.

M0nica

How on earth do you get by in life never reaching any judgment on anyone unless you know them in depth.

Polly Toynbee is a journalist - and a prolific one. She writes lots of opinion pieces. Of course you can get a feel for the person from what they write. If you have any sensitivity and intelligence you read what is written by people, of people, and their behaviour and listen and sift and compare and contrast, and reach 'on balance' conclusions about them.

How boring life must be if you see everyone who is not a personal friend or relation as being just as blank as a one dimenional photograph.

Does your blankness extend to saying we can know nothing about Boris Johnson, or Donald Trump because we do not know them, I won't say 'intimately', it could be misunderstood, but not well enough for them to be on your Christmas card list (Oh, I know, you do not send Chrustmas cards, you donate to charity) well enough to be texting them.

What a sweeping statement! There will always be those who believe what they read in the media because either they lack the necessary skills or because they believe what they want to believe. A certain type of journalist can lead them by the nose.

These are the sheep to which I refer. You talk of Trump! I talk of his moronic supporters, glued to Fox. Get it?

I do not 'get it' and I have come to the conclusion Quokka that either you haven't read my post carefully enough or by taking one or two sentences out of context you have given them a meaning that is not there.

I think it will be a lot sooner than 25 years. Charles does not look a well man to me.

However soon Charles goes, William will be next.

Calendargirl

Just listened to her on the 6 News giving her opinion on Charles and the future of the monarchy.

Predicting George will never get to be King, reckons it will all be gone in 25 or so years.

And saying how they needed Meghan, but how they ‘blew it’.

Well, like many of us, she probably won’t be around to gloat about it.

"Needed Meghan". is she mad? Nobody needs that narcissistic, brash Megaliar

What a strange opinion, we need Meghan? What for? She’s caused nothing but strife, trouble, and upset.

But Meghan is a woman, and as we know women can do no wrong. Any criticism is sexism even when well-deserved.

M0nica

But Meghan is a woman, and as we know women can do no wrong. Any criticism is sexism even when well-deserved.

Including journos like Polly Toynbee😄 nobody must say anything, well that’s what the 😇 on here think, unless it’s about Liz Truss or Suella Braverman I’ve noticed, and then it’s open season on them.

M0nica

But Meghan is a woman, and as we know women can do no wrong. Any criticism is sexism even when well-deserved.

I must be sexist then! Oh well

There were plenty of people who said that the criticism of Liz Truss and Suella Braverman was motivated by sexism, and, of course, racism in Suella's case. Considering it has been open season to subject Boris to intense criticism, I do not think that Suella or Liz has received anything like the criticism he has received, and so richly deserved and exactly the same applies to them.

I’m sure that sexism and racism figured in the criticism of Priti Patel and Suella Braverman, but many do not see it, or call it out for what it is.

Luckygirl3

Indeed no. For instance I formed a judgement on Liz Truss - that she was misguided and not competent to be the prime minister. But I did not feel the need to vilify her as a person.

There is no problem with people making the judgement that Meghan found royal life a problem and expressing disappointment that things did not work out; but that does not mean she should be vilified. We do not know her. We do not know what problems she is contending with.

I just can't vilify either and attempt little judgement -wish I did better.

This word 'vilifying' keeps coming up. To criticise someone for their actions, views or attitudes is not vilification. Vilification means abusing some one on a purely personal base as for example to call someone ' a fat cow,' or similar.

I am not aware of any personal vilification on this thread, although I am aware of a lot of criticism of Polly Toynbee, which I consider more than justified (and that is not vilification.)