On 08/09/2019 11:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 08:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, JimÂ* wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

Except, of course that it *was* incorrect.

People often get "its"/"it's" wrong. The possessive is "its" and
"it's" is always a contraction of "it is" or "it has."

"It's" works the same way as the contractions "wheres" or "theres"
and "its" is a possessive just like "my" or "your."

SteveW
Correct.

It's (sic!)Â* one of those odd exceptions to the 'rules' of English.


I only recently learned this. Having been getting it wrong for decades.

They must sneak these exceptions in for the super pedantic grammar nazis.

On 08/09/2019 11:13, Graeme wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
On 07/09/2019 13:09, Graeme wrote:
Yes, I know, times change, but I went to a similarly sizedÂ* school,
and I doubt there were 20 staff including the cleaner.

The "inclusion" staff?

No idea really.Â* On visits to the school, there always seem to be almost
as many adults as children wandering around, but many of them, although
qualified as teachers, rarely if ever teach.Â* Support staff, wellbeing
staff, special needs staff, career staff, the list is endless.Â* There is
a head and two deputies, none of whom actually teach regularly.

When I was at school (just over 500 pupils), we had a head (who didn't
normally teach) a deputy head (who did), subject teachers, two women in
the school office, one caretaker and two lab technicians. At lunchtime
there were 4 dinnerladies). There were no teaching assistants, SEN
staff, welfare staff, etc.

I can see some good reasons for additonal staff, such as aiding
physically disabled, but mentally normal pupils to attend mainstream
schools, but but for all the disruptive pupils with "Special Needs,"
there should be a short period of attempting to strighten them out and,
if that fails, they should be transferred to a "special" school, letting
the rest of the pupils get on with learning.

SteveW

On 08/09/2019 13:21, R D S wrote:
On 08/09/2019 11:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 08:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, JimÂ* wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

Except, of course that it *was* incorrect.

People often get "its"/"it's" wrong. The possessive is "its" and
"it's" is always a contraction of "it is" or "it has."

"It's" works the same way as the contractions "wheres" or "theres"
and "its" is a possessive just like "my" or "your."

SteveW
Correct.

It's (sic!)Â* one of those odd exceptions to the 'rules' of English.


I only recently learned this. Having been getting it wrong for decades.

They must sneak these exceptions in for the super pedantic grammar nazis.

his, her(s), its, ours and theirs are all sort 'separate words' to it,
he her, us and them.

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, Jim wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

That might be suitable for your level, ie kindergarten, but when you
aspire to be at a teenage academic standard this might be more helpful:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guide...cwx/revision/4

quote
Its and it's
'Its' (without an apostrophe) shows a relationship of possession, eg
'Its fur is smooth and shiny.'
/quote

Who knows whether you understand the subtly of "relationship of
possession" or "omission" and exceptions.

If you still think "his" is wrong and "hi's" is right then perhaps stick
to your kindergarten understanding of grammar.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 12:46, NY wrote:
"Graeme" wrote in message
news
There is a head and two deputies, none of whom actually teach regularly.

I think it's normal for the head and deputy head to spend most of their
time managing and very little, if any, time teaching. As in any walk of
life: the more senior you get, the less time you spend doing what you
are trained to do and the more time you spend managing other people
doing it.

At the infant/junior school that I went to, I don't think the
headmistress and headmaster taught at all.

They did in mine, but that was a private school. They owned it.
The only none teacher I can recall is the cook. She might have been a
cleaner as well.

Must have been a mighty small school if it only had one non teaching
staff. Which of course might explain you.

But of course to make a profit you dont have hundreds of demarcated
staff do you?

And the important thing with education is to make a profit from it. Says
it all, really.

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Been talking to your pal Trump again?

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
quote
Its and it's
'Its' (without an apostrophe) shows a relationship of possession, eg
'Its fur is smooth and shiny.'
/quote

Easier in practice to just see if you can substitute two words in the
sentnece. If 'it is' fits the sentence use the apostrophe in 'it's'

--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 08/09/2019 15:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
quote
Its and it's
'Its' (without an apostrophe) shows a relationship of possession, eg
'Its fur is smooth and shiny.'
/quote

Easier in practice to just see if you can substitute two words in the
sentnece. If 'it is' fits the sentence use the apostrophe in 'it's'

That is now what I do. Not surprisingly I wasn't taught grammar in my
secondary school in fear it might stunt my creative side! Puhh

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 08:24:23 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, Jim wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

Except, of course that it *was* incorrect.

People often get "its"/"it's" wrong. The possessive is "its" and "it's"
is always a contraction of "it is" or "it has."

"It's" works the same way as the contractions "wheres" or "theres" and
"its" is a possessive just like "my" or "your."

SteveW

Wrong as usual.
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/the...ve-apostrophe/

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 11:41:34 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 08:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, JimÂ* wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

Except, of course that it *was* incorrect.

People often get "its"/"it's" wrong. The possessive is "its" and "it's"
is always a contraction of "it is" or "it has."

"It's" works the same way as the contractions "wheres" or "theres" and
"its" is a possessive just like "my" or "your."

SteveW
Correct.

It's (sic!) one of those odd exceptions to the 'rules' of English.

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/the...ve-apostrophe/

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 10:37:22 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 08:24:23 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, Jim wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

Except, of course that it *was* incorrect.

People often get "its"/"it's" wrong. The possessive is "its" and "it's"
is always a contraction of "it is" or "it has."

"It's" works the same way as the contractions "where’s" or "there’s" and
"its" is a possessive just like "my" or "your."

SteveW

Wrong as usual.
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/the...ve-apostrophe/

Maybe you should have read the whole article.

"Notice that possessive pronouns like yours, his, hers, ours, its and
theirs are not followed by the apostrophe."

QED

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 10:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
harry wrote:


Wrong as usual.


Indeed you are.

NY wrote
Graeme wrote

There is a head and two deputies, none of whom actually teach regularly.

I think it's normal for the head and deputy head to spend most of their
time managing and very little, if any, time teaching. As in any walk of
life: the more senior you get, the less time you spend doing what you are
trained to do and the more time you spend managing other people doing it.

At the infant/junior school that I went to, I don't think the headmistress
and headmaster taught at all.

I know mine did, because they both taught me. Mainstream
classes too, English. And that wasn't a govt school either,
one of the country's premier what you lot call a public school.

At the first secondary school, the head taught us scripture (double
scripture on a Saturday morning - deep joy!) and according to the
prospectus he also taught "modern languages" - probably to the senior
boys. The deputy taught chemistry to the sixth form but otherwise managed.

At the second secondary school (Dad changed jobs) the head didn't teach -
the only time we saw him was when he droned on in assembly about "you must
have a Good Revision Programme" and "the Good Name of the School"
(delivered while standing ramrod straight, head back, looking down his
nose - all of which was imitated mercilessly!)

Yeah, outs was the same "accept the challenge" with the same derision
from the kids behind his back. He'd been a sergeant in the war.

.. and the deputies

We only had the one, anglican minister.

spent a fair amount of time teaching - but then there were two joint
deputy heads so their probably shared the managerial side of the job.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 05:20:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


At the infant/junior school that I went to, I don't think the headmistress
and headmaster taught at all.

I know mine did

Nobody asked you anything, senile Rodent. Maybe you should try another
entirely new nym, you trolling senile pest? BG

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
At the second secondary school (Dad changed jobs) the head didn't teach -
the only time we saw him was when he droned on in assembly about "you
must have a Good Revision Programme" and "the Good Name of the School"
(delivered while standing ramrod straight, head back, looking down his
nose - all of which was imitated mercilessly!)

Yeah, outs was the same "accept the challenge" with the same derision
from the kids behind his back. He'd been a sergeant in the war.

My headmaster spoke in a bored-with-life upper-class drawl. He was obsessed
with pushing as many boys to go to Oxbridge, and spoke disdainfully of
"other universities". I remember he called the whole of the Lower Sixth to a
meeting and said "I am now going to read out a list of names" - which he
did - and then continued "Those of you whose names I have not read out are
not considered Oxbridge Material and should leave this meeting now" which
was a very tactless way of putting it and must have been offensive to those
who were "only" considered suitable for red-brick universities.

I was in a quandary. My name was read out, so I was deemed to be worthy of
trying - but I didn't want to go, because I didn't like the college system,
the elitism and the whole Oxbridge way of life. But when I mentioned this
tentatively to the careers master, he said "For god's sake don't say that to
the head". So I applied to an Oxford college - at my interview with the head
beforehand he blathered about "I know the Physics tutor at X college - had
lunch with him only last week - so you should try for a conditional offer".
Along I went, only to be told that the college didn't normally make
conditional offers so why was I applying here, and was baffled when I told
him that my headmaster had specifically recommended that college. I was not
at all happy that my time had been wasted, but on the other hand I was glad
that I wasn't put into the invidious position of getting an offer and the
required A level grades but deciding to go for a red-brick university
instead. I also had very bad advice about choice of subject: I was
interested in computing and electronics, but the head strongly advised me to
go for whatever A level subject I was best at, rather than an off-shoot
subject like Engineering that was peripheral to an A level subject.

I was naive and thought he knew best. Now I'm sure he was talking out of his
anal sphincter ;-)

He's still alive and I've seen photos him at recent Old Boys events. Now in
his late 80s or early 90s, he doesn't look half as imposing as he did when
he was the big boss.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 20:53:19 +0100, NY wrote:


My headmaster spoke in a bored-with-life upper-class drawl.

Talking of "head", YOU sure know how to give the very dumbest trolls head,
senile idiot! BG

On 08/09/2019 18:37, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 08:24:23 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, Jim wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

Except, of course that it *was* incorrect.

People often get "its"/"it's" wrong. The possessive is "its" and "it's"
is always a contraction of "it is" or "it has."

"It's" works the same way as the contractions "wheres" or "theres" and
"its" is a possessive just like "my" or "your."

SteveW

Wrong as usual.
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/the...ve-apostrophe/

Go and read what you have posted to, it clearly mentions yours, his,
hers, ours, *its* and theirs as possesive pronouns and apostrophes being
used for contractions - exactly as I said!

SteveW

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 12:59:36 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
And if they also stopped forcing girls into trousers and let them were
reasonable skirts if they want to and concentrated on teaching, it might
be nice.

Or you could let the boys wear skirts if they want to. ;-)

There was a case where it happened en masse in response to some overly petty uniform rule changes.


NT

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 15:39:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 12:46, NY wrote:
"Graeme" wrote in message
news There is a head and two deputies, none of whom actually teach regularly.

I think it's normal for the head and deputy head to spend most of their
time managing and very little, if any, time teaching. As in any walk of
life: the more senior you get, the less time you spend doing what you
are trained to do and the more time you spend managing other people
doing it.

At the infant/junior school that I went to, I don't think the
headmistress and headmaster taught at all.

They did in mine, but that was a private school. They owned it.
The only none teacher I can recall is the cook. She might have been a
cleaner as well.

Must have been a mighty small school if it only had one non teaching
staff. Which of course might explain you.

But of course to make a profit you dont have hundreds of demarcated
staff do you?

And the important thing with education is to make a profit from it. Says
it all, really.

What kind of fool thinks money doesn't matter?

misterroy wrote:
"I was a knob-head at school, hated all my teachers, and I'm going to
make sure all my children are knob heads too."

....and that's just the teachers!

On 08/09/2019 23:38, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 12:59:36 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Or you could let the boys wear skirts if they want to. ;-)

There was a case where it happened en masse in response to some overly petty uniform rule changes.


In Australia it was

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...uniform-policy

Seems weird but OK, but then I am a Jock so the sight of a male in a
'skirt' is not so offensive in my eyes. :O)
And as a modern human being I say let 'them' wear what they like as
long as it is clean, in good repair, legal etc .

On Monday, 9 September 2019 07:22:25 UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:38, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 12:59:36 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Or you could let the boys wear skirts if they want to. ;-)

There was a case where it happened en masse in response to some overly petty uniform rule changes.


In Australia it was

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...uniform-policy

Seems weird but OK, but then I am a Jock so the sight of a male in a
'skirt' is not so offensive in my eyes. :O)
And as a modern human being I say let 'them' wear what they like as
long as it is clean, in good repair, legal etc .

I've never had much time for the whole uniform thing, seems petty & pointless. None of 'my' schools had uniforms & it was never a problem.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 15:39:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 12:46, NY wrote:
"Graeme" wrote in message
news There is a head and two deputies, none of whom actually teach regularly.

I think it's normal for the head and deputy head to spend most of their
time managing and very little, if any, time teaching. As in any walk of
life: the more senior you get, the less time you spend doing what you
are trained to do and the more time you spend managing other people
doing it.

At the infant/junior school that I went to, I don't think the
headmistress and headmaster taught at all.

They did in mine, but that was a private school. They owned it.
The only none teacher I can recall is the cook. She might have been a
cleaner as well.

Must have been a mighty small school if it only had one non teaching
staff. Which of course might explain you.

But of course to make a profit you dont have hundreds of demarcated
staff do you?

And the important thing with education is to make a profit from it.
Says it all, really.

What kind of fool thinks money doesn't matter?

What kind of fool thinks it is paramount with education? If so, easy to
save money. Simply don't educate the masses.

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 07:22:25 UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:38, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 12:59:36 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Or you could let the boys wear skirts if they want to. ;-)

There was a case where it happened en masse in response to some overly petty uniform rule changes.


In Australia it was

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...uniform-policy

Seems weird but OK, but then I am a Jock so the sight of a male in
a 'skirt' is not so offensive in my eyes. :O) And as a modern human
being I say let 'them' wear what they like as long as it is clean, in
good repair, legal etc .

I've never had much time for the whole uniform thing, seems petty &
pointless. None of 'my' schools had uniforms & it was never a problem.

One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or poor
families by what they wore. And a uniform gives an identity to all. Would
you allow an army to wear what they chose?

--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Saturday, 7 September 2019 13:20:13 UTC+1, Graeme wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay and
anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver that can
wipe it's own arse.

Talking of schools, we purchased a whole school photo, taken a few
months ago, as it was child's last year. Amazed to count, on the photo,
85 yes 85 teachers and support staff, for a school with around 600
pupils. Yes, I know, times change, but I went to a similarly sized
school, and I doubt there were 20 staff including the cleaner.
--
Graeme

It would be more interesting to see the roles of those staff pictured.
I wish I could post a list of what happens here but they skew the results by calling the tea lady who serves tea and coffee to the academics and admin staff is classed as a technician.

On Saturday, 7 September 2019 13:22:19 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay and
anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver that can
wipe it's own arse.

Out of interest, Adam, do you really think it's a school's job to teach
kids how to wipe their arse?

Surely it's the catholics priest job to do that.

On Saturday, 7 September 2019 14:19:39 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 07/09/2019 13:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay and
anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver that can
wipe it's own arse.

Out of interest, Adam, do you really think it's a school's job to teach
kids how to wipe their arse?


Toilet training seems to be just another of the things where parents
increasingly blame anyone but themselves for their child's failings.

There was a head from a school "oop North" (I think Bradford) on Radio 4
a few weeks ago who said they now routinely have kids sent to them in
nappies so have in practice no option but to keep a stock and change
them. Admittedly this is with reception classes at age 4. And she made
much of circumstances - poverty, mothers with little or no English and
not working, etc.

I didn't know you had to speak English in order to change a nappy.
I'll rememeber that and if I ever gets asked to do it I'll say I can't look at my spelling.

Nice get out clause, but how do no english speakers cope in their own countries ?

On 09/09/2019 14:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 07:22:25 UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:38, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 12:59:36 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Or you could let the boys wear skirts if they want to. ;-)

There was a case where it happened en masse in response to some overly petty uniform rule changes.


In Australia it was

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...uniform-policy

Seems weird but OK, but then I am a Jock so the sight of a male in
a 'skirt' is not so offensive in my eyes. :O) And as a modern human
being I say let 'them' wear what they like as long as it is clean, in
good repair, legal etc .

I've never had much time for the whole uniform thing, seems petty &
pointless. None of 'my' schools had uniforms & it was never a problem.

One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or poor
families by what they wore. And a uniform gives an identity to all.

While I can agree with that and definitely support having uniforms, it
used to be sufficient to have the school tie and a badge to sew onto
your blazer. Now it requires school blazer (not just badge), tie, a
couple of pull-overs, waterproof, PE bag, shorts, top, hoodie,
track-suit - all logoed and all bought from one of only two suppliers to
the school. The cost is way over what you'd pay for equivalent Tesco
items and they soon grow out of them.

SteveW

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or poor
families by what they wore. And a uniform gives an identity to all.

While I can agree with that and definitely support having uniforms, it
used to be sufficient to have the school tie and a badge to sew onto
your blazer. Now it requires school blazer (not just badge), tie, a
couple of pull-overs, waterproof, PE bag, shorts, top, hoodie,
track-suit - all logoed and all bought from one of only two suppliers to
the school. The cost is way over what you'd pay for equivalent Tesco
items and they soon grow out of them.

Assuming you can buy the correct colour blazer (etc) from Tesco or
whatever, swap over the badges when they need a new one? This is after all
a DIY group. ;-)

--
*Jokes about German sausage are the wurst.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or poor
families by what they wore. And a uniform gives an identity to all.

I went to a school with a uniform. Most things were fairly anonymous and you
could buy them anywhere. The only thing that was unique was the blazer. You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still* find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

My blazer suffered a slight "accident" when someone held a lit Bunsen burner
under the elbow during Chemistry. My mum got special permission from school
to put on leather elbow patches (still a matching shade of green) to hide
the singe mark.

On 09/09/2019 16:02, NY wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or
poor
families by what they wore. And a uniform gives an identity to all.

I went to a school with a uniform. Most things were fairly anonymous and
you could buy them anywhere. The only thing that was unique was the
blazer. You could buy it from the school shop or from one specific
gents' outfitters in town.

At the infants, juniors and secondary school that I attended and the
two primary schools, plus secondary that my sons have attended, they
have all been Navy Blue, Black or Maroon - which all seem to be widely
available.

There was still a gradation of poor/rich,
based on the grade of blazer that your parents bought you: a "cheap"
felt-like material or "expensive" worsted barathea. It was still more or
less the same style and cut, the same colour (bottle green), same
"silver" buttons, and with the same school badge on the breast pocket,
but the gradation of the type of material still sorted the sheep from
the goats ;-)

My first (and only my first) school blazer, when starting infants, was
hand-tailored, with the badge emroidered onto it. My aunt/godmother's
father was a tailor and it was her present to her godson on starting school.

In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

My blazer suffered a slight "accident" when someone held a lit Bunsen
burner under the elbow during Chemistry. My mum got special permission
from school to put on leather elbow patches (still a matching shade of
green) to hide the singe mark.

Slightly better than when one of our physics class put a lit bunsen on
one of the side benches too close to the curtains and ended up setting
them on fire! Whole school evacuated and the fire-brigade needed.

SteveW

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 07:22:25 UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:38, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 12:59:36 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Or you could let the boys wear skirts if they want to. ;-)

There was a case where it happened en masse in response to some
overly petty uniform rule changes.


In Australia it was

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...uniform-policy

Seems weird but OK, but then I am a Jock so the sight of a male in
a 'skirt' is not so offensive in my eyes. :O) And as a modern human
being I say let 'them' wear what they like as long as it is clean, in
good repair, legal etc .

I've never had much time for the whole uniform thing, seems petty &
pointless. None of 'my' schools had uniforms & it was never a problem.

One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming
from rich or poor families by what they wore.

But in reality its still obvious who the poor kids are because
their parents cant afford a proper uniform, even if the school
does have a system for selling cheap second hand uniforms
that some kids have grown out of.

And a uniform gives an identity to all.

Never seen that happen in practice, particularly with
schools that have a wide diversity of ethnic origin kids.

Would you allow an army to wear what they chose?

That’s different, you need to know who are yours and who is the enemy.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:19:12 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming
from rich or poor families by what they wore.

But in reality

The ONLY reality here is that you are trolling piece of senile ****, senile
Rodent!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Monday, 9 September 2019 17:59:22 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
My first (and only my first) school blazer, when starting infants, was
hand-tailored, with the badge emroidered onto it. My aunt/godmother's
father was a tailor and it was her present to her godson on starting school.

I bet you were thrilled.

I think Christ's Hospital has the best uniform (and it's provided free to pupils)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29047752

Apparently you get free admission into the Tower of London when wearing it.

Owain

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 17:59:22 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
My first (and only my first) school blazer, when starting infants, was
hand-tailored, with the badge emroidered onto it. My aunt/godmother's
father was a tailor and it was her present to her godson on starting
school.

I bet you were thrilled.

I think Christ's Hospital has the best uniform (and it's provided free to
pupils) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29047752

Apparently you get free admission into the Tower of London when wearing
it.

Apparently 'Guildford Blue' was the cheapest cloth on the market at the
relevant time.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 10:20:41 UTC+1, charles wrote:
Apparently 'Guildford Blue' was the cheapest cloth on the market at the
relevant time.

And the yellow stockings gave protection against rats.

Owain

On Monday, 9 September 2019 15:57:42 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or poor
families by what they wore. And a uniform gives an identity to all.

While I can agree with that and definitely support having uniforms, it
used to be sufficient to have the school tie and a badge to sew onto
your blazer. Now it requires school blazer (not just badge), tie, a
couple of pull-overs, waterproof, PE bag, shorts, top, hoodie,
track-suit - all logoed and all bought from one of only two suppliers to
the school. The cost is way over what you'd pay for equivalent Tesco
items and they soon grow out of them.

Assuming you can buy the correct colour blazer (etc) from Tesco or
whatever, swap over the badges when they need a new one? This is after all
a DIY group. ;-)

You could if it were allowed. We have the same problems with graduation gowns.
These are only hired for about 1 hour.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ts-due-toanti/




--
*Jokes about German sausage are the wurst.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:02:47 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
One idea was it stopped kids being identified as coming from rich or poor
families by what they wore. And a uniform gives an identity to all.

I went to a school with a uniform.

Me too.

Most things were fairly anonymous and you
could buy them anywhere.

True I rememeber shirts and trousers from pollards for me, while some got theirs from M&S. The owner of a secondhand shop sent his kid to some tailor 'up london' to get his childs clothes.
So while all white shorts might look the same.......



The only thing that was unique was the blazer.

Yes while it was balck the only supplier was one shop that was recommended.

You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked pretty much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still* find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
You
could buy it from the school shop or from one specific gents' outfitters
in
town. There was still a gradation of poor/rich, based on the grade of
blazer
that your parents bought you: a "cheap" felt-like material or "expensive"
worsted barathea. It was still more or less the same style and cut, the
same
colour (bottle green), same "silver" buttons, and with the same school
badge
on the breast pocket, but the gradation of the type of material still
sorted
the sheep from the goats ;-)

yes but the general idea was that everyone from that school looked pretty
much the same.


In other words, if you try to make everyone the same, they'll *still*
find a
way to look for differences and better/worse distinctions ;-)

Yes but the school can claim everyone is treated the same.

Yes, the school treated everyone the same and everyone looked more or less
the same, barring attempts to "vary" the school uniform as much as they
could get away with - because human nature seems to be that everyone wants
to look as different from each other as they can manage while staying within
the rules.


The one situation where school uniform is a problem, is when it immediately
identifies children from the "posh school" to the local kids from the
council estate next door. We had a real problem with local "Pots Kids" (the
district was unofficially called Potovens because of the smelting ovens in
the area a long time ago) invading the school grounds, and attacking
isolated boys who got separated from the rest while out on a cross-country
run.

My mum said that in her day, the girls from the High School and the boys
from the Grammar School were not allowed to be seen together while wearing
school uniform (this was a High School rule - the Grammar School were not as
paranoid) which was a problem when brothers and sisters travelled home on
the same bus or train. Some girls took plain clothes in a holdall and
changed into them in the loos just outside the school gate so they could
meet brothers or boyfriends without being penalised. The school knew it
happened and condoned this way of avoiding the rule: apparently it was not
the fact that *"their* girls met boys, but the fact that they were seen to
be High School girls doing it. The school had a very strange attitude: they
allowed junior boys from the Grammar School to use the pool - obviously when
girls were nowhere near - but they imposed a cur-off age of 12 because they
thought that older boys, post-puberty, would "pollute" the water. Maybe they
genuinely thought that their girls could become pregnant through swimming in
water that virile boys had just swum in ;-)

On 08/09/2019 08:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 07:04, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2019 12:47:32 UTC+1, JimÂ* wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:32:11 +0100
ARW wrote:

spend more time actually teaching subjects than putting up anti gay
and anti bullying posters I might eventually find a school leaver
that can wipe it's own arse.


You might even find one that knows the difference between "it's" and
"its".

His use of it's was correct.(Possessive)
It's you that's thick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zx9ydxs

Except, of course that it *was* incorrect.

People often get "its"/"it's" wrong. The possessive is "its" and "it's"
is always a contraction of "it is" or "it has."

"It's" works the same way as the contractions "wheres" or "theres" and
"its" is a possessive just like "my" or "your."

SteveW

I'm fine with its and it's.
I always have trouble with their, there, theres, theirs, there's and their's