Linas.P

I don't have complete answer to the climate change, but if we focus onto factual outcomes - rising temperature, sea level and meting ice... then we already doing adaptation and we already doing "trial and error". As well animals do it naturally. So we can already do a little experiment... We can go to a different locations and see how we feel. We know that about 2000ppm Co2 would result in temperature 6C higher than now... where is 6C higher than UK? Canary Islands... so we can go there today and see how we feel. Hottest temperature on Earth nowadays is "death valley" at 56.7C (or 20C higher on average than UK) - again we can go there and I reckon majority would not like it. Animals do that all the time, they do migrate as well, but if we really want to see the effect on particular animal, then we can take say bees from UK and take them to Brazil... and... ohhh wait they thrive there! We can as well take fish from more salty seas to less salty (because melting ice dilutes the ocean) and see how they adapt. My understanding is that they will be just fine considering the process is so gradual (literally thousands of years), but I might be wrong as I am not an expert here. Now sure - at the same time we know that some animal will be fffed - like sorry polar bears! As for water level... we don't really need adaptation at all, simply as well build and maintain buildings some shoreline locations will have to be moved further inshore. We don't need any special buildings, just ideally not building them under the water. Now obviously I am oversupplying here and it is almost parody of the climate science, but that is partially why I started this thread - when eco mentalists says that "0.5C more and world ends" (because we are already up by 1.5C on the 2C target) I just want to illustrate how ridiculous is this statement.

No that is kind of opposite - we taking away things that makes least difference, but creates maximum pain (at least from my perspective). So this is not example of evidence based experimenting. The goal of stopping human induced acceleration of climate change would require humans to stop existing and would still fail, because it is natural process - that is fact if you look into the evidence. So on one hand yes - nobody is "saying we should stop living", but the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2C above the temperature at the time of industrial revolution itself requires human extinction and more, it is otherwise not achievable. Unless - we admit that reducing emissions is not enough and we need something like carbon capture - then yes. I have explained this several times now, but it seems I am unable to explain it in such way that makes sense to you. I am not alarmist - I am only talking about the "hurt" that I am suffering myself. You already said you do not consider that an issue yourself, so we agree to disagree here - fine. Evidence to support what? That temperature is rising, that sea level is rising, that ice is melting? Yes - evidence for that is plenty! That this is damaging - that is already interpretation of facts and not a fact in itself. That is not my opinion, so we don't need to disagree on anything here. No and I am not suggesting that - I am saying "if they would be good"... so that is theoretical. You geographical point is good and valid. Although partial solutions that we had in our country was so called "Gymnasiums" - they are still public schools, but for kids who are academically better than others, still free to attend (although back in my days there were rumours of bribing for places). That said what is important is that acceptance in them at least in theory was based completely on academical merit and now how rich the kids were, secondly their diploma had exactly same value as simple secondary school and the only reason they were attractive was because in theory all the kids were "proven good students", so in theory there was less nonsense and distractions. So it worked something like this - there would be geographically located secondary schools all working at roughly the same level, they were not strictly limited to geography but predominantly attended by kids from the area. And then in bigger cities and some towns they had "gymnasiums" which were secondary schools, but instead of being automatically attended by kids from the area, they were based on application and usually kids would travel there from around the city to attend. Most importantly as you can see the attendance was based on academic merit and not MONEY! And it was actually choice of the kids themselves to some degree, because they had to achieve that by getting good grades. And it was only for grade 8+ (so ~14-15 years olds+). So they kind of achieved what UK is trying to achieve with money, just without money and without disadvantaging anyone. Because you could get just as good grade in normal secondary school (in fact it was easier to get good grade in normal school) and you would get into the same universities. I know the argument here could be - "yeah but in public school in UK you could also get good grade"... theoretically yes, but practically no. The system I am describing really gave no advantage to anyone who didn't already had it, nor took it away from somebody. And we even had opposite of that - we had like "technology/technical schools"... usually for kids who were not academically good (sadly that is why they were considered schools for losers), but they were focusing on "blue collar" work, basically welders, mechanics, carpenters etc. Very good idea in theory and to large degree they worked, but in practice they as well had a lot of issues with antisocial types who were there because they dropped out of the normal school. Although I know that quality nowadays have significantly improved compared to the times I was in school. Nowadays they have strong record of teaching programming, robotics etc. and standard has really improved, it is no longer the place for those who can't read or write. To distil my argument then - I see the point of separation, as long as it is not based on paying fees to get kids into private schools, it should not be monetary distinction, it should be distinction on merit. And one may ask - so what is then distinction between the system I am describing and "tripartite" - the difference is that nobody was forced to take any of those options. One could simply continue in secondary school as long as they want and as long as they can get grade better than 4/10 (5 or 6/10 in some gymnasiums) and even then this was only requirement in later years for like 14-16 years olds, not putting 9 years old into inferior education because school failed to interest them in any subject.

How so? What is the actual benefit of private schools if state schools are good? ... and that social mobility is taken away (unless parents make sacrifices), because we allow rich parents kids to live in their private school bubble. If state schools would be decent, then everyone would go to state schools and it would increase social mobility? No?

But how it affecting my lifestyle brought you to the other conclusions? Or for that matter misquoting what I have said. Yes I said it negatively impacts my lifestyle, but none of the other points. And that is exactly what I think we are doing... we are "jumping to the actions" without understanding the science. And yes you right - science is often inconclusive, but we as well can have practical experimentation e.g. we do smaller jump, then larger jump and we reach the point to where we strain ourselves and then we come to rooftop and we can gauge that if you jump from this it is not going to end well. Whereas with environment it is literally "we have this theory and we think it may cause this - let's stop living now". I actually disagree that scientists says that "acceleration of climate change is damaging", I think that is exactly the misconception pushed by ecomentalists "science says it is damaging". No science says- it temperatures will rise, ice will melt, some animals will go extinct and sea level will rise. So that is fact. Ecomentalist interpretation of such fact would be "yeah exactly - so that is damaging", my interpretation is "no it is not damaging, that is natural and inevitable".

That is kind of my issue with reporting - as we know diesel does not burn by itself, so whatever is the fire in the video... it is NOT diesel fire. That the car was diesel - yes it is pretty likely, but that does not mean diesel caused the fire. Obviously, eventually when whole car started burning the diesel started burning as well, but diesel was not what started the fire. As well diesel was not what exploded so hard that it literally blown the floors. Just little note here - the explosion was so hard that it blown 3 floors, the camera angle is from ground floor (as you can see barriers) the car was burning on 3rd floor. Or was the explosion caused later by electric cars exploding in 2nd or 3rd floor maybe?! But it was NOT diesel that exposed. Hence my speculation that it was hybrid... That said - why don't they release specific model and end this speculation... what are they hiding? Just found this - seems to agree with my speculation as well.

Fine... you better lawyer than I am, on the basis that I am not even a lawyer... Still makes no difference... legal principles are the same small claims or "full blowing civil action with multiple litigants". The costs of legal reps travelling - again not my issue, they will be costs of defendant. That is why I said I would just use claims management company here. Truth to be told - it would be brave claims management company that takes on this case, but that would be marketing opportunity for them as well, so not impossible, in other hand more realistically they would look at the challenge ahead and would likely refuse to take on the case.. that is possible as well. In which case it wouldn't be large "civil case", it would be me suing them individually for damages, I wouldn't even bother with representation which I always do and often that is mistake, but it allows me to sue in cases where I would not be able to afford the cost. In civil suits where individual person is suing large corp. the cost usually are not attributed back to claimant, so I more than likely to be fine. My goal would be to settle out of court for compensation, as I agree with you - legally speaking it would be hard to prove any wrong doing in court. Right or wrong - I specifically mentioned in perspective of "lacking law", I am not sure if you have problem reading what I have said. I said sadly there is no law which forces car parks to accept certain level of liability. It would be "right" for such law to exist, but because it does not, then it can't be used in court. So here you are kind of right - in courts there are no "right or wrong" it is simple, dry, plain laws, either it is illegal or it is not illegal. Still - there is right and wrong from perspective of Carpark/Airport. Right thing for them to do (not necessarily legally required) would be to pick-up the bill for all cars destroyed in the fire and then recover the cost from insurance of the car that caused the fire. That is what any respectable business would do. This is legally possible, but I guess not legally necessary. The wrong thing for them to do would be to tell everyone to fff-off and use their own insurance, even if that is probably legal. They would still risk litigation and potentially damage to their image, as make no mistake - every single news article will pick on them for screwing over those drivers. As a matter of fact they haven't even screwed anyone over and news are already piling-up saying they are failing in their duty, not explaining owners what to do and leaving them in "limbo". This is where I have already took their spokespersons response... so they are under huge pressure to do the "right thing here". What I was wondering as well... Even if they got there, how could they access the middle of third floor?! Seems strange that it took so long for firefighters to arrive as well, when Airport itself has fire station... so perhaps the issue was more of lack of specialised equipment to access the place needed, not the time it took for firefighters to arrive. Note as well - many videos shows firefighters just watching how fire is spreading at first... pointing back to previous point, maybe airport own firefighters arrived, but could not do anything apart of standing and watching, until Luton FD arrived with cranes etc? Which again just points me to absurdity of not having sprinklers - if the building is such that access for firefighters would be difficult, then it seems no brainer to at least have sprinklers.

Not sure how my experience would make any difference to what is right and what is wrong... but here you happened to picked on the wrong person, because I do lawsuits pretty much for fun, I enjoy them... in fact I am slightly afraid that I will be banished as vexatious litigant one day. Not that any of cases I bring are particularly vexations, but just the volume of them and sometimes absurdly low amounts. To be honest in majority of the cases I am defendant, so perhaps that is not going to happen, but basically anytime when I am given an option to accept the cost (no matter how tiny) or face/submit lawsuit I always choose lawsuit... even if the principal amount is £60, I have sued for £2 and won. It actually may be less than that, I have sued Asda for false advertisement, because they shown fuel price as £1.04, but actually charged £1.09, consumer protection decided not to do anything, so I had to take them to small claims myself, rookie mistake - I have not claimed the costs, so I basically lost like £50 for that claim. I defend/start such suits just on principle alone and in many cases it have costed me more to defend it than paying up the fine. I have another 8 hearings outstanding this year, 7 out of 8 I am 100% confident to win, the 1 is 50/50% maybe interesting for case law later. When it comes specifically to insurance I had 2 suits, once technically as a witness, once in similar liability case. I think your point regarding the costs is kind of irrelevant - in insurance lawsuits costs would usually be covered by insurance company that is covering the third party (assuming you win). The only point where I believe your are correct - insurance companies are unlikely to want to sue each other and they always prefer to make it the issue for policy holder. If you asking specific number - I have long lost it, must be something between 75-100 cases. 16 this year alone, most Small Claims Court, but had few in Employment tribunal (which is technically not a court), not much luck in Crown Court sadly, lost both cases there, well CPS lost both on my behalf, but I was the victim so I count that on myself ... luckily haven't been taken into High Court yet as that does not pan out well in most instances. Which... luckily remind me the solution here - if I were to be involved in incident like here I would just go to my trusty claims management company and let them deal with it, I would not bother speaking with my insurance company at all, apart of maybe putting in "information only" note i.e. "my car just got destroyed". Only have used them 3 times so far, but compared to using insurance it is literally night an day. But they only work for non-fault claims. That said I am not qualified, nor practicing lawyer, even thought I have combined honours degree in business management and law.

That is what I have said, that is why I would like to see law change in this case to make sure car part operators are accountable. Car insurance policy easily covers £20 millions+. I think my policy has £100 million third party liability, for exactly such occasions. I would sue if I would be forced to use my cover... As I said ultimately the insurance of the car which started the fire is likely to pick-up most if not all the bill, this is exact reason why cars are required to always have insurance on public land, even if not being driven. So the only way I can see this working out is either Carpark/Airport liaises with car at fault insurance and provides details from where it has to be claimed or they cover the damages and they claim themselves, it should not be each individual claiming on their insurances under any circumstances. Besides it is as well argument to have - where is the line from where your car gets destroyed by another car burning, or from the carpark collapsing... I think if you are driver of one of few unlucky cars that can be seen parked where car is burning, then it would be reasonable to say you can claim directly from the insurance of that car, but if you were on another floor of car park which ten collapsed, then it is kind of difficult to argue you should be claiming from your insurance. In the end of the day it does not matter why it collapsed, what matters is that your car was crushed by the collapse. Whenever car park considers somebody else guilty for the collapse is their own issue. But I don't believe it could be reasonably expected that by saying you park "at your own risk" means our car park can collapse and crush your car. It is more like for occasions of somebody else bumping into you or somebody vandalising your car, not for the building itself collapsing. Either way - that is speculation for time being, but initial statements from Airport sounds promising.

That is one of the first discussion I had with my girlfriend - my view is that the correct way would be for car owners to claim damage from airport insurance and then for airport insurance to reclaim from the car insurance that started the fire. However, if we look at similar fire in Liverpool then the owners "were advised to contact their insurance". In case my car would be destroyed in such fire I would refuse to claim it on my insurance as that would be ridiculous, it would mean I would end-up paying far greater premium next year, have claim on my policy and would have to pay excess. As well it is not necessarily the case that all cars have Comprehensive or Theft + Fire cover, so their insurance may not even cover the damages, therefore reasonable thing to do would be for Airport insurance to cover the damage at first. But as we know insurance is not about doing right thing, more often than not they just going to try to shift the blame to somebody else. I guess there is possibility of making non-fault claim and for individual insurers to then reclaim the money from Airport or from car that started it. I am quite certain airport car park will say that it is not their liability, because car park was built in line with legal code and for example sprinklers are not a requirement, so there is no negligence on their side. That said I still see liability of Airport here, as there were no sprinklers and I think it is possible that some sort of agreement will be reached where Airport and car at fault insurance would reach the deal to cover parts of overall damage. It seems hard to argue that design was sufficient, when it turns out single car can burn entire car park, so it may not be in breach of regulations, but clearly not good enough. Although not really relevant for insurance, I think it is right to say that building code in UK is just horribly lacking. We had two major fires in 2017, one residential and one in car park, particularly Grenfell tower triggered building regulation review and yet we don't have sprinklers as an requirement despite in both cases it was concluded that they would have saved the day?! Luton Car park was only built in 2019, so after the pervious events, so again even without regulation it seems negligent that whom ever was responsible for fire safety did not think it would be good idea to install sprinklers?! What is for sure - I would not be the person whose car was destroyed in this fire as it may take years to process claims in such complicated case. Seem like lack of legal protections as well in our law, I would like to see the clause which would force car park operators to cover damages for vehicles parked there i.e. treat it as if the cars are in their "possession" rather than merely renting plot of land from them, yet as we all know car parks always says they "are not liable for the damages", which I always hated as in my mind that should always be responsibility of car park. P.S. - recently Airport Spokesperson said "We are working with APCOA Parking and the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) who will co-ordinate with the various vehicle insurance companies."... so that makes me hopeful it will be as I said - claim off Airport/Car Park and then they reclaim from whomever is found ultimately responsible.

So the information we have so far: Fire started as Range Rover (likely older Evoque or older Sport). Now speculation is that it was hybrid, so that would point to Sport, because older Evoque didn't have hybrids, only the new one which looks different. So my bets would go at it being diesel-mild hybrid Sport. So although it was not BEV, it was likely still caused by lithium battery fire - that is my take. As well look at where the fire is under the car an where the mild-hybrid battery sits in Landrovers (coincidence?): What sort of surprises me - I always thought there were sprinklers in Luton car park, I certainly seem to remember red pipes on the celling and sprinklers, or am I just imagining it? And if there were none in relatively new car park then perhaps something needs to be done about that going forward. As well what is for sure - diesels do not explode like this: Actually don't want to dot together too many dots, but wasn't Liverpool arena fire as well started by Range Rover of some shape?

Not quite sure R33 GTST has all the same modcons as IS250, not even R34 GTT... but I give you that - their values were amazing... On the stories off the cars we have missed because of stupid culture and insurance... On of the very first cars I quoted the insurance for in was Surpa... as it happens neighbour had ones for sale for £3000, but because he already told me about all the issues I knew I could get it for no more than £2000. It was TT, but auto, hat a little bit dodgy wiring because of early '00s immobilisers, but for 19 years old me it was very cool that you can remote start it and that it had most ridiculous blow-off valve. The car was "ropey" thinking about it now, but black with what may or may not be original Veilside body kit (highly likely original, poorly fitted as it suppose to be for the period). But if memory serves only 38,000 miles. Anyhow... insurance for that thing was £36,000 (that is a year just in case anyone is in doubt). So that is where my dreams ended. It is very unlikely I would have kept that car until now, but nowadays Supra in any condition is like £15,000+... the real TT2J £25,000+... at least it wasn't manual as that would really hurt!

I agree with statement that functional family support determines more than what happens in school, But that does not address the problem for kids who do not live in functional family and really on school as their last resort... Nor it explains why public school failure should be acceptable, or why two tier system which clearly benefits those who pay is allowed. So what you have stated is most likely correct, but it is not full explanation...

I think that is opposite nowadays, automatics are more likely to be cheaper. Whenever you have automatic only license, that is different story - I think it is true that people that have automatic only may have to pay a little bit more for insurance (but tiny amount)... yet automatic cars tends to be cheaper to insure than manuals. The only reason automatic may be more expensive to insure is if the car itself is more expensive... Like in the case of IS250 - manual car is only worth £1500-£2500, whereas automatic is £3500+ so yes, insurance is likely to be more expensive on more valuable car a little bit. Although you probably right in general - IS250 would be expensive car to insure for young driver, because Brits are just weird and consider IS250 "large and powerful" car. When I got mine in UK my first insurance was like £2600 and I was already 25 with nearly 9 years of experience.

I agree with what you said and I know you not picking on me, but just in case there is any doubt... that is not what I said, or at least not what I meant. My main argument is that government not "might be wrong", they are definitely wrong, what they want to do objectively does not address the issue regardless what people choose to believe. As for scienience I didn't say "they might be wrong" either - I said two things - 1) scienience that we have is inconclusive 2) science we have suggests that key climate outcomes (like melting of glaciers and temperature rise) are natural and will happen without human contribution. Finally, I said man made emissions are currently about 2% of total, but 90% of excess... So I never said they have no meaningful effect. Whenever I care about effects, or whenever I think they are bad, that is different question. That said - regarding education I agree, it is not necessarily question of money, I just generally find two tier system benefiting some and burying others unacceptable, especially in education. As well I find mere existence of Private education as proof of Public education failure.

I will check my facts better next time... £35 million for the app that doesn't even work is still quite bad. Probably would take me alone an afternoon to develop it... I wish I could get even 1/10th of that cost. But it is obviously better than £37 billion.

I would rather say - "they would be" account able in normal society... "normal" may mean many things, principal, educated, opiniated etc... but we live in society where very few people really analyse what was promised and what was delivered. On top of that as long as ruling party can offer more than opposition, even if they have failed every single promise, they still get elected... because alternative is worse. I don't think politicians are accountable in true sense of the word. How many billions get's wasted every year, and how many corruptions scandals we hear every year... and yet nobody goes to jail, nobody returns their millions, nobody get's fined, nobody gets barred from running for office. One of many example (and this is just random one, but I can literally name dozens even without searching) - "track and trace" system... £37 billion just basically lost. Shouldn't there be investigation, shouldn't there be exact accounting where and how much money went and for what? I am sure some money was spent to develop an app, but we know that majority was wasted, so where the money went? Where are the checks and balances? Why don't we have people responsible being rounded-up and giving the money back at very least and ideally being sentenced for corruption... One think I know - app does not cost £37 billion to develop, £37 billion is more money than most of the companies I worked are worth and they all had large IT departments with many developers and all were developing sophisticated software, not simple track and trace app. If somebody would say £25 million was spent on WORKING app I would raise and eye brow, because that would be way too expensive for such a simple thing. No they spent £37 billion and nobody is even investigating that. In short what I am saying - there should be check and balances, and there should be immediate investigation, not some consequences during next elections... no immediate investigation, arrest and punishment. Voting is all fines and voting on promises has it's own issues, but not only politicians should be accountable for promises made, but as well they should be accountable for all other crap they gat away with. In summary - accountability that exists is just grossly inadequate.

I would change fist sentence from "sometimes" to "almost always". Norway is poor example because the amount of oil Norway has compared to it's tiny population means they could live of it, In UK that would have never worked, but I agree that at least Norwegian politicians didn't squander that opportunity, I am sure British politicians would have found the way. I would disagree with you here - I think key problem is that politicians are unaccountable, check and balances have failed and they openly lie without consequences. That is what I think is the problem... but broader issue for democracy is that it only works if voters are educated... which is exactly why I am so sensitive to the topic of education and why it is so crucial to prioritise it... and why I think it is by design does not work, because politicians don't want to be voted out by the voters who understand what is going on... So how people can act as a society when they are simply uneducated and can't figure out even basics? This reminds me of this satire (somebody mentioned benevolent dictator as solution... so here we go, you still don't think it is NOT by design?):

I am not intending to change your mind on this, but there are countless examples of where it was neither proportionate nor reasonable... It really depends on where you stand on what is causing climate change, or whenever the change is acceptable or not... so if the view is that change is caused by humans and the change we have is not acceptable, then I would even argue that our government (or collectively the world governments) don't do anywhere near enough. Obviously alternative view points are possible - for example that change is not human caused, or that like me - that change that is being caused is simply not a problem.

uuuuu.... you going very deep with this one, may add another 10 pages to discussion if we go there, but I agree with most that you said... and even reflects back to why I have such a horrible and pessimistic view about life... just happens to be that I am at the top of the middle, but not quite reached the "escape velocity in wealth", so I end-up paying loads of tax and can save little, despite earning much. People richer than me simple finds ways to avoid paying taxes... Anyhow... enough about myself, but I agree with everything yous said. Being pessimist and conspiracy theorist I am - I would go with the option of "by design". Wait what?! You just argued that I should not remove the choice and now you saying you didn't have one! Isn't that ironic?! Agree with the rest thought, I never said older system was better or worse, I just have an issue with current one, that is all. Again... sadly it may be the case of "by design"... they giving you illusion of choice, whereas realistically that was the only way reasonable person could have gone anyway... as well I would like to circle back to my earlier point that maybe good education and educated society is undesirable for ruling elites? Which then nicely circled back again to our original topic of climate change, why we have such horrible issues understanding and interpreting science and why it is so easy to create and control zealots who will fight for the cause of either pro or anti-environmental stance.

Just very recently... ~page 9 or 10. Basically after I have already started the thread, there was new policy claims by current government which kind of went in line with the discussion... and now opposition had provided their alternative policy which included tax on private education and it just kinds of created new topic... One one hand good reminder to get back to the topic... in other hand I reckon everything that could be discussed was discussed in 9 or 10 pages, so I think this topic about climate has reached it's natural bottom and now it is a little bit of free for all 🙂

I am not sure there is any benefit to look at what was in the past, unless there was something working that we can use today. As such I am just saying today Education does not work and that is all... is that fault of Private education? No Private education is just a symptom of bigger problem. However, I disagree that "there is not enough money to make it work", education is one of the cheapest and best investments in the society, way more important in peace time than absolutelly anything else. Education is what builds the society, that is future generations and relatively speaking it is not very expensive. Agree with a lot of what you said, but not this bit... the problem is again that people making choice is not the kids themselves. So inevitably we have a situation where better quality education is not provided to those who have "bent" for it, but those who parents paying for it. So we are just basically failing entire generations of kids who simply due to lottery of life failed to be born in the families that care. The education should be based on choices of kids not choices of parents, especially the quality of it. If the state schools would be at least decent, then there would be no problem, but they are not and that is key problem.

Yes coffee + ice cream was fuelling me. As well, I do not consider this a fight, rather an interesting topic to discuss, hopefully this does not strain you too much... I had slightly different response drafted but you have distracted me with Tripartite System reading... I can clearly see why somebody would have an issue with it, so I think it is correct that system was abolished, it was clearly flawed... that said it's replacement is clearly not addressed the issues and arguably made some issues with education worse. I think I would like to take a step back here and just recognise that we going further apart on this discussion and I feel like you building a strawman... to be fair your building it from my statements, but you keep squiring around the core idea I am arguing about. Either that or it is my fault for not explaining it properly. To start with, maybe the confusion is that I do indeed consider Education as a special and different area than anything else... So comparison even to Healthcare does not work, you paying for private medical care does not hurt my health in any way, so yes of course it is fine for people just to pay for their private medical care. This for sure this should not be an excuse to destroy public medical care, but in itself is not an issue. Education is different thought, again I would like to point you back to my analogy which I believe illustrates the issue quite well. The existence of private education does not make kids to compete on their merits between the two systems, it just means that kids in private schools have advantage and that is all. You yourself said that public schools are rather horrible from the stories you heard from your family... wouldn't it be right to make the public schools decent? Wouldn't that even benefit people like you, because public schools being decent would mean you can keep your money for something more exciting than just paying for your kids education? In summary, the way I understand what you saying - past government ruined education, nowadays the reality is that you either caught-up a lot of money to send your kids to private school or you basically ruin their life. I am not even sure what we are disagreeing with here, because I think the same... basically those that can afford private schools are working around government created problem, and all the rest who can't afford or whose parents do not care can pretty much burn? Is that acceptable in developed world and society? As well what makes it so bad is that people who are suffering here are not the ones making decisions, it is kids who are suffering, not their parents... that is why I don't think parents should have that choice at all, because the consequences are on kids not parents. Still the big point which still seems to be amiss - kids cannot choose the education they will receive, so I am not advocating for removing any choice here, kids don't have choice, so I am advocating for that only choice they have to be the right one, society and the government has to ensure it, because kids can't ensure it for themselves.

I think it is you who is taking that literally now... I have provided analogy for a reason. As a parent would you go as far as paying money for your kids to cheat in marathon? The private education has same influence kids education, kids from public schools will struggle more at every step, getting in university, then from worse university getting into best jobs etc. They can still get there, they just going to work much harder - this is zero sum game, one kid having easier as well makes another kid having it harder when they compete for same university places, same jobs etc. Most normal parents will try to make their kids future better, that is fine... but you still failing to see it from child perspective, especially the one who does not have good parents. And not only that you ignoring the rest of my arguments of how not having private education would benefit the society overall. And sorry, if I wasn't explicitly clear - I am not blaming parents for paying for such "shortcut" in their kids education, no I am blaming government for allowing it to exist. I understand that parents will want best for their kids even if it comes at the expense of other people kids, that is kind of natural parental thing, but that is why in society we should set-up education in such way that this does not happen and parents don't need to worry about this.

1. That is not wat I have said, what I have said is that I am biased, because I inherently despise it, I think it creates artificial divisions in the society, I believe it gives undue influence from parents to the child's future, I think that it inherently condemns kids whose parents does not care for sad outcomes in their life. So it is not that I don't understand it, I am just openly advocating for them to be abolished. I am saying parent should not have such a direct route in putting their kids ahead of the curve... I think this is like cheating. As for analogy - imagine there is marathon between kids, you can let your child to compete fairly and on their merits from the start line or your can "invest into their future" and pay the high fee that other families either can't afford or are not willing to pay and you can get your kid to start marathon from 10 miles mark. Now sure some kids going to be so useless that even starting 10 miles ahead of their peers they still going to be overtaken, but for poor kids they have to run full length and winning it is just not an option, even if they are truly better runners. This is just "unsportsmanlike" basically. And I am not talking quiet part out loud, this is "out loud part" - paying for your kids private education brings them to the front of the pack, this is fact, everyone knows it, that is why private schools exists. 2. And that is literally what I said - I said that some people will make sacrifices and will invest into the future of their kids, as per point #1 that is inherently an issue in itself. Call me idealist, call me purist, call me whatever you like - what I am saying (after gulping large glass of wine mind you) parents should not be allowed to "invest into the future of their kids, by means of paying money". Good advise sure, leading by example sure, but basically buying them a place in prestigious university - no the ffing way. Very simply what I want and what I am advocating for (as Bill said - "equal opportunity not the equal outcome"). Is that smart kid should be first and the dumb one should be last, that they all get equal opportunity and the smartest ones becomes most successful - I think there is genuine value for the society for this to happen, because when dumb people are successful we are all in deep trouble - wouldn't you agree?! What I want to happen is that when kid is real dumb, then it does not matter where they coming from or if they been in private education... I want the to go and study gender studies, or marine biology or African dances... and with education as such I want them to be take out of any public office or any decision making at all. And this is not hate towards rich people, or kids in private schools, it is a hate of dumb people being successful and deciding how our society should work because their parents literally bought their places in school and university. Your mere admission that "private schooling is sacrificing money to pay for your kids future" is an "investment", basically proves my point, that is the whole problem. That is what I am talking about. This should not be possible, it should not be possible to make mediocre intelligence person successful in life by paying for private education... because this happens at the cost of really smart person being unsuccessful, because they never had same opportunities, because parent decisions can make or brake it. No education should be same for everyone... nobody should have a head start because their parents paid for it.

Indeed, and I hoped it was clearer that is what I am advocating for, but well summarised. Especially kids should have equal opportunities, regardless of their parents success or standing in the society, private schooling is just deeply rooted division, which further devices society. When I went to school we had all sorts of kids, some were poor, some where kids of known rich families, you could always tell who is from which family, but one great thing that happens - kids are kids, they find friends without snobbism of adults, yes sure there is always group of "cool" kids and group of "losers", but this is not necessarily divided by wealth. What that means is that kids from poor background can socialise with kids from rich back ground, that eventually their parents can socialise and that in my opinion brings society together... at least a little bit. But when society is separate from basically the birth, then no wonder there is no understanding or common ground. And the second sentence I believe summarises my stance on private education quite well - the reality is that rich already have it better from the get go, even before they become adults and before they start deciding for themselves. And poor already are artificially held back by either worse education, or education that is at very least considered as inferior when university admissions are considered. It is not big secret that best universities prioritise kids from private schools. As well I do recognise that not all private school kids are coming from rich people, some parents really prioritise their kids education and barely scrape by to get them into private school. What I am saying - this should never be necessary, the private schools perhaps could exist for parent benefit e.g. giving them more flexibility on when to take kids out on holidays and not being stupid with fines for missed classes, or maybe allowing dedicated parking, pick-up and drop off facilities, or other extracurricular benefits. But when it comes to core topic of kids education public schools should not provide inherently worse education, getting decent education should not be question of money.