Coffee House The Spectator Podcasts

The View from 22 – international justice, school sports and unfair GCSE results

23 August 2012

8:44 AM

23 August 2012

8:44 AM

Is there a downside to our glowing era of ‘international justice’? In this week’s cover feature, Douglas Murray writes that our carefully designed system can trap criminals, giving them no way out and potentially leading to even more horrific acts. In our View from 22 podcast, Douglas expresses some of his issues with how signatories perceive the International Criminal Court:

‘It is a replacement for being a serious military power, it’s cheaper in the end and gives people this wonderful cloak. Any politician who wraps themselves in the ICC wraps themselves in a wonderful moral aroma that was actually fought for and earned by many hard working people. But it has not been earned by this generation.’

Melissa Kite also joins to discuss our newfound enthusiasm for sport in schools thanks to the Olympics. She questions whether we actually aiding the education of our pupils or just punishing the less physically adept ones. Finally, Neil O’Brien, director of Policy Exchange, joins to discuss our leading article on GCSE results and the correlation between schools’ location and the quality of education. Fraser Nelson offers the his thesis:

‘I may be proved completely wrong but I suspect if you are a 16 year old, there’s another way to work out what your results are before you open the envelope – just work out if you are from a rich or poor neighborhood. There’s a horrible correlation in the English comprehensive education system. You go to a rich area and your school is likely to be good and you’ll get good results. If you live in a poor area, you will get bad results.

It’s not because the poor kids are thick, it’s because they are short changed, or betrayed some might argue, by a system which gives the rich a lot better service than the poor.’

[Alt-Text]


And what do Fraser and Douglas think of Julian Assange’s successful bid for asylum and George Galloway’s views on rape? Listen think with the embedded player below to hear their moments of the week. You can also have the latest podcast delivered straight to your machine by subscribing through iTunes. As ever, we’d love to hear what you think, good or bad.

The View from 22 – 23 August 2012. Length 27:19
Download audio file (MP3)
Subscribe with iTunes
Subscribe with RSS

Listen now:

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Eddie

    ‘It’s not because the poor kids are thick…’
    Well actually, partly it is: if mum is thick and dad is thick then only be mutation can you not be. ‘Academically’ think, that is.
    Far to much of this ‘oh everyone is intelligent in different ways’ bollocks – anyone can see who the bright and dim kids are aged 5. The rich who are thick get crammed and have other options and second chance of course.
    But some children are thick – about 20%. It is REALLY easy to get a C grade GCSE – esp when 40% of it is coursework (where you can get ‘extra’ help…)
    Thing is, when we had selective schools – the bright kids who were poor could go to good grammar schools and on into the professions – in really poor areas like inner city London (Harold Pinter, Alan Sugar, Michael Cane all went to Hackney Downs Grammar – which became a sink comprehensive later). The bright poor kids are being betrayed.
    The American social engineering experiment of comprehensive schools, meant that you got the school as determined by postcode – so the kids in poor areas would go to the crappy local comp, whether bright or dim.

  • UlyssesReturns

    Fraser says “There’s a horrible correlation in the English comprehensive education system. You go to a rich area and your school is likely to be good and you’ll get good results. If you live in a poor area, you will get bad results.It’s not because the poor kids are thick, it’s because they are short changed, or betrayed some might argue, by a system which gives the rich a lot better service than the poor.’

    Perhaps the reverse is the case. Has anyone considered that poor areas are sustained by the fact that the people living there are in fact thick? They certainly appear to be as thick as soup to me with a large section of London. the Midlands and the North having odd religious beliefs in a 7th century warmonger or equally thick footballers posing as modern-day deities, a continued and inherited desire to live on welfare, pushing out babies at 14 without any means of support and abusing the resultant offspring. No believer in eugenics am I but where you have generations of underachievers living off the state and rarely travelling more than 10 miles from their place of birth except for an annual rampage through the bars of Magalouf or the Costas, seeing everything through the distorting lens of the ubiquitous TV and Sky Sports, this cannot stimulate the development of IQ and a desire to better oneself. These ghettoes are the drag on the productive sector and the mainstay of the complicit thickos in the labour party. The modern-day lumpen proletarat, the Roman mob, the undeserving poor – they will bring us all down.

    • Archimedes

      Speaking as someone who has been to schools in both poor and rich areas, I’m pretty sure that it’s an attitude problem.

      Those coming from poorer areas tend to be less inapposite to failure, and consequently the culture in schools with a majority from poor backgrounds tends to be an ‘aim for the gutter’ culture. When someone is derided for doing something badly by a teacher, or for not trying, the other students applaud, whereas if an individual is recognised for succeeding they get derided by the other students – so it is difficult for any intelligent person to succeed without being relatively unpopular. No doubt, being surrounded by failure, poorer students are more afraid to fail, and often choose not to try in order to avoid that.

      Those that come from wealthier backgrounds know that in order to maintain that standard of life, they will have to secure a career. Those that come from poorer backgrounds already have the standard of life, to which they are accustomed, guaranteed by the state, and so the need to succeed is diminished.

      To be fair, this culture exists in all state schools, it’s just far more pronounced in the poorer areas.

      • Barry

        Agree entirely.

        I once heard it said that middle class people believe that education is something done for them whereas working class people believe it is something done to them.

        Simplistic, but an element of truth there I think.

    • Publius

      Ulysses. That would be too much like rocking the boat. Mr Nelson prefers banalities and platiudes. That way he can ensure access to the seat of power, which he seems increasingly eager to kiss.

    • Cogito Ergosum

      The Labour party destroyed the grammar schools because “they were not fair”. But they were not so unfaIr as the present system.

      I guess the Conservative party failed to reintroduce them because they WERE fair.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here