BTL'ers are not evil are they??

CLAPTON

LydiaJ wrote: »

You have not addressed my point about the impossibility of parents choosing the curriculum, whether the government interferes or not. If you want to choose the subjects your children learn and at what level, then you will need to educate them at home - which you are already free to do, either yourself or by employing a tutor.

If you send them to school, then you will have to make do with a curriculum designed by somebody else to attempt to cater to most children - either the government or the leadership team of the school will choose what subjects are possible, and the content of those subjects will be decided either by the government or the exam boards.

there is no reason why there can't be many schools with different curriculum from which I can choose for my children

yes it will be a compromise (as is inevitable for most things) but vastly better than a monolithic government scheme (that changes with education secretary).

LydiaJ

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is no reason why there can't be many schools with different curriculum from which I can choose for my children

yes it will be a compromise (as is inevitable for most things) but vastly better than a monolithic government scheme (that changes with education secretary).

I am guessing that you live in London or some other big city if you are talking of "many" schools. Where I am, there are only a few (secondary) schools within a reasonable distance, and by the time I've chosen one with the right ethos, strong teaching and good behaviour, I'm not likely to be left with any choice based on the curriculum.

They're all likely to offer English, maths, sciences, languages, history, geography, RE, art, music, drama, ICT, some kind of tech, PE etc anyway, whether the government tells them to or not.

CLAPTON

LydiaJ wrote: »

I am guessing that you live in London or some other big city if you are talking of "many" schools. Where I am, there are only a few (secondary) schools within a reasonable distance, and by the time I've chosen one with the right ethos, strong teaching and good behaviour, I'm not likely to be left with any choice based on the curriculum.

you are of course incorrect:
the fashion for huge schools is a 'supplier' led policy and not a parent led policy.

LydiaJ

CLAPTON wrote: »

you are of course incorrect:
the fashion for huge schools is a 'supplier' led policy and not a parent led policy.

If you want plenty of subject choice, go for a big school every time.

I teach in a school of nearly a thousand. My friend teaches in a school of about a hundred. Both schools are independent. Parents and students get a lot more choice of subjects in my school than in my friend's school. It's just not viable to offer a GCSE in a minority subject (for example, Italian or drama or food tech) if you're not going to have enough students picking it to make up a class of a decent size.

CLAPTON

LydiaJ wrote: »

If you want plenty of subject choice, go for a big school every time.

I teach in a school of nearly a thousand. My friend teaches in a school of about a hundred. Both schools are independent. Parents and students get a lot more choice of subjects in my school than in my friend's school. It's just not viable to offer a GCSE in a minority subject (for example, Italian or drama or food tech) if you're not going to have enough students picking it to make up a class of a decent size.

yes of course that is true: but the choice for my children should be mine and not yours (however well intentioned).

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

Does anyone know what happened the last time?

Properties with protected tenants in place gradually became worth less and less compared to those without.

That then drew in criminals (most famously Peter Rachmann) who made money by buying houses with protected tenants in place and then made life progressively more uncomfortable for the tenants until they left. In at least one case he had the roof of the house removed. Others would employ 'heavies' to threaten and beat tenants until they left.

The thing is, you can't have security of tenure without rent controls and you can't have rent controls without security of tenure. If BTL becomes an ever larger part of the housing market then it'll come IMO.

Old_Git

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Damn. How old is the bathroom in this property!?

B&Q circa 2008

fordcapri2000

CLAPTON wrote: »

whilst it may be true that every property owned by a landlord is one less that is occupied by an owner occupier, it is also true that every property occupied by an owner occupier is one less that occupied by a tenant.

in general levels of occupancy are higher in rented property than owner occupiers, so a substantial move to higher levels of owner occupancy without building proportionately more housing, will simply mean that tented properties will be more overcrowded.

.........


The big difference in 2014 compared to the past is that when you wanted Social housing or to even rent you had to be working and to prove it.
In the old days for example if you wanted a council house you had to go down to the office and say that you was married, had a child and had a job, these days you just have to turn up and say "I have children", and the more the better.

I would even go further, saying that to have a job or even a husband is a hindrance to getting social housing.
I cannot think of any nice way we are going to sort the UK housing crisis out, but we need to be focusing on looking after people who pay their way in life, and we also need to stop most of the £25 Billion housing benefit a year ending up in property speculators pockets.

TickersPlaysPop

fordcapri2000 wrote: »

.........

.....we also need to stop most of the £25 Billion housing benefit a year ending up in property speculators pockets.

I have no idea about the current realities of social housing or who gets what.... However....

This is another very good point I have never mentioned or thought about. If housing benefit is going into housing profiteers pockets the situation is even worse than I have been thinking!

chucky

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I have no idea

We know this already.