"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:39:04 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:07:22 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
But many schools would be destroyed as a result.

This is a pessimistic view.

It's the downside of your proposal. It's rather a large and expensive
downside - and you expect the taxpayer and the individuals hit by it
to
pay the cost whilst you and your mates pick up all those extra profits
going into private schools.

You're still missing the point and are using emotive arguments. I
haven't
said anything about profits or extra profits, only the separation of
funding from delivery.

I know full well what you are saying. I'm just filling in the blanks that
you
are deliberately leaving that way - like people who refer to 'the grammar
school system' pretending that secondary modern schools didn't exist as a
consequence.
You're lying like a good PR to sell an idea and I'm ****ing you off by
reminding everyone of the pitfalls.

Not really. I'm not ****ed off in the least.

Matt, you are.