StatCounter

Tuesday 26 October 2010

Can you spot the missing word in this BBC news report?

The BBC report that
'More than one in five of England's primary schools are full to bursting point, government statistics reveal.'
Apparently:
'Some 20.3% of state primaries, 3,444 in total, are full or have more pupils than they should, Department for Education figures show.

The numbers are up on last year, when just under a fifth (19.8%), some 3,376 primaries were full.

It follows claims any schools funding increases from the spending review will be wiped out by rising pupil numbers.

Analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggests per pupil funding will fall in real terms by 0.6% per year because of expected increases in pupil numbers.

The new figures will also revive concerns about a lack of school places in some parts of England, particularly in big cities such as London and Birmingham.'

So why are schools so crowded, are some closing down leaving others to cope with the pressure?

The BBC report, as a section heading, that the problem may be 'Booming birth rates'
but only discuss that aspect near the end of that section with this solitary sentence:
"Areas experiencing booming birth rates need to be able to expand primary schools so that every child has a place not too far from their home."

Now why would some areas have a booming birth rate and not others? What possible reason could there be? And why are the BBC not interested in investigating this area? Could it possibly be that the areas with 'booming birth rates' are areas with a high proportion of immigrants and that the increase in pupil numbers is not just due to a 'booming birth rate' but also immigrants bringing their families with them when they come here for work, despite the last Labour government telling us that this would not happen. Mind you the last Labour government reassured us that total immigration form EU countries would be measured in the tens of thousands, whereas in reality the figure is nearer one million.

Thanks to Andrew Neather we do at least we know why the Labour government deliberately opened "up the UK to mass migration", it was at least in part due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity".

Labour sold us on the the benefits of immigration: filling jobs that Britons were unwilling or unable to do, adding to the vibrancy of the UK, culturally enriching the Nation. They were less willing to discuss the associated downside of overstretched public services such as the NHS & schools, let alone the problems that importing people some with very different ideas about tolerance and human rights into this Country.

So some questions:
1) Why do the BBC not mention the word immigration in their article?
2) Will anyone ever hold the last Labour government to account for their deliberate policy of encouraging mass immigration?
3) How will this all end for the UK?

1 comment:

English Pensioner said...

When a friend of mine was posted to Karlsruhe in Germany for three years, he thought it would be a good idea if his two children (7 & 9) attended a local school where they would learn the language and find local friends. He was told that they were welcome, but all teaching was in German, and that it would be his responsibility to teach them the language and not that of the school. In the event he had to send them to a local American school run for their service personnel.
If Germany could adopt this stance, why can't we?