upwardly-mobile couple, with much to
be happily upwardly-mobile about,
thanks to lots of wonga from the Taxpayer
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.
This, in turn, must be read with Article 14 of the main Convention:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
Thus the citizens of the United Kingdom enjoy a right to education which must be afforded to them ‘without discrimination on any ground such as….other status’.
The fact that it will be made easier for one group of students – those from State Schools – to qualify for a University Place for which a middle class student from a fee-paying school has to get higher qualifications is to discriminate on the grounds of status.
That, of course, is quite apart from the inherent evil of discriminating against the middle classes simply because they are successful and using such social engineering to make up for the abject failure of Labour’s pet education project, the Comprehensive School, which over its some forty years of life has achieved the singular feat of destroying the chance of a half-decent edcuation for huge swathes of our people.
The Comprehensive system has always been about levelling all schools down to the level of the worst – so that its clientele might be equally badly educated – and after ten years of further hard work damaging the fabric of that education system they now seek to remedy the fact that it has singularly failed by destroying our universities as well.
It is, one might think, no wonder that, compared with fifty years ago and more, social mobility has been stalled. Now social mobility is to be kick-started by promoting the mediocre at the expense of the good so as to save Labour’s blushes concerning its utter failurer on the education front.
Still, Ed Balls, aided and abetted by his fishwife partner, the shrill and chippy Yvette Cooper, know a thing or two about social mobility, don’t they?
As they enrich themselves by telling the House of Commons that their second home is the flash pad in London whilst telling the Revenue that their house in Yorkshire is their second home, the former for the purposes of helping themselves to lots of taxpayer’s money and the latter to ensure they minimise their liability to Capital Gains Tax, they should be adept at giving a lecture on how one might promote social mobility.
Such a scheme may well be within the rules, but is it moral?
For certain, though, it is rank hypocrisy.