Letters: November 24, 2016

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters

Rethink inspections

IF THE fracas caused by a letter from the regional director of Ofsted has taught us anything, it should be to be wary of how overall statistics are interpreted.

Whilst statistics may reveal a lot, they can hide the essentials. Which begs the questions: What are the inspections trying to achieve?

And what is the purpose of schools?

Put simply, Ofsted inspections are supposed to be ensuring that all schools are providing all children with a satisfactory education.

But are the inspectors measuring the right things?

In today’s culture, many inspections (in other fields) appear to be designed to tick boxes to suit the administration rather than measure the quality of the service provided, which some may say is immeasurable.

Put simply, schools are supposed to teach pupils basic facts. But education consists of more than the acquisition of knowledge; it is more a matter of learning about life.

The basic facts used to be called the “3 Rs”- Reading, (w)Riting and ‘Rithmetic; but nowadays the National Curriculum includes much more.

In my opinion, all children should be taught something about history (particularly our own), geography and preferably a foreign language, but they should also have a chance to experience sport, art and music.

Learning about life cannot really be taught. It has to be learned from the experience of meeting, and mingling with other people. They should also be taught how to accept differences of race, colour, creed, behaviour and opinion and thus, how to get on with them.

Perhaps if all schools taught more about statistics – their positives and negatives and how they may be used and abused – then we would all learn not to jump to conclusions.

MALCOLM MORRISON

Prospect Hill, Swindon

Swindon

....

Division leads to crime

I THINK that left/right is the most useful but clumsy method to clarify our different political opinions, in order that all of us can discuss them sensibly, to make democracy work.

My own opinions are opposed to the blind, culturally-formed conformity which draws most citizens to Conservatism.

In contrast, I believe that the policies favoured by Tories like Ian Duncan Smith actually create much of the future criminality in the minds of the next generation, both out of the deep resentment now in the lower deprived classes, and also out of the complacent self-conceit now in the upper, obscenely rich classes, as with Sir Phillip Greed.

I think that such a divided and unjust society has always been an evil society, with a disgustingly warped and inefficient form of economics which supports it.

But what I consider to be morally offensive is the majority choice of its victims.

Mine is a minority opinion, despised by the national media, because of who owns that.

Could we not construct some forum, perhaps in the universities of our nation, where honesty, ethical principles and rationality could play a bigger part in synergetic discussion of what civilisation should mean? This is not it.

CN WESTERMAN

Meadow Rise

Brynna, Mid Glam

....

No borrowing required

IT’S MORE than 50 years since I studied economics but I’m sure we were never taught that the Exchequer had to borrow money to “bridge the gap” between the nation’s imports and exports (Terry Hayward, Deficit burden, Adver, November 21).

The transactions have all been settled in the various currencies by the individuals, companies and public agencies involved, so why does Terry think the Government needs to borrow the net difference?

In part these international imbalances are funded because people and governments want to hold each other’s currencies for whatever reasons.

Otherwise they usually result in movement in exchange rates, which is why you could get four dollars for £1 sterling in the 1930s and barely more than one dollar today.

America also has an adverse balance of payments but the dollar is propped up in part because it’s the currency in which oil is traded and many countries hold large dollar reserves for that reason.

In the late 1990s Saddam Hussein tried to persuade the OPEC countries to switch to trading oil in Euros, which would have wrecked the US economy.

It wasn’t long before the USA, supported by the UK, found cause to go to war against Iraq.

We were not supported by the countries in the Eurozone that would have benefitted hugely from the change to Euros.

However, Saddam was deposed and subsequently executed. I think the OPEC countries took that as a sign that it would be prudent to stick with the US dollar.

DON REEVE

The Pinnacle, Horder Mews

Old Town, Swindon

....

Hearing put in danger

FIVE years ago I suddenly lost my hearing in one ear for it never to return. I have moderate hearing in the other ear.

I have been told by specialists if I have any change in my hearing ear, it’s imperative I return to Ear Nose And Throat at the GWH to receive immediate treatment as time is a crucial factor with my condition.

My hearing giving cause for concern and an obvious emergency, I presented myself at the Great Western Hospital’s ENT department at 8am one recent Monday.

Not faulting the receptionist who was very respectful and, evident to me following orders, gave me the choice of two appointments: one two months away and the other two weeks.

I said it was important I received treatment that day.

Only when I said I would seek treatment at the Accident and Emergency department my appointment was whittled down to the afternoon of the next day.

There was not a lot I could do but to accept and only hope I didn’t suddenly lose my hearing altogether in the next 31 hours.

Thankfully, after arriving home despondent, within the hour my wife got me an appointment at our own GP practice.

I was given a repeat prescription of steroids and advised to keep my ENT appointment.

WILLIAM ABRAHAM

Rodbourne, Swindon

....

Get rid of Royal Family

JUST how much does having a royal family cost? Too much.

I refer to the amount of money which Parliament will almost certainly be awarding for Buckingham Palace repairs.

Remember, Parliament is meant to protect subjects from the Crown excesses, not pander to it.

What will the taxpayer get in return? Nothing, apart from the odd public panto or boring Christmas speech monotonous drone. She contributes nothing towards repair costs, just waits patiently for the political sycophants and the palace propaganda press to start spinning.

Foodbanks proliferating; an ailing NHS; libraries closing; children’s centres closed.

Then we have the Tories robbing the sick, disabled and lone parents of full benefit entitlements.

The Disability Rights website alone lists 15 benefits which are to be capped.

Charities are alarmed, teachers too, as more and more children turn up hungry and bedraggled.

Should we not get things in perspective?

Who comes first? The workers or those pariahs with their never-ending holidays, courtesy of taxpayers?

The Windsors are the richest land-owning family in the world!

The Crown Estate, which includes half of all office space in the West End, provides vast tracts of the countryside, 17 retail parks and the British seabed (incredibly valuable as the site for offshore energy farms and telecommunication cable).

Pensioners unable to maintain their properties are advised by governments to downsize, with no financial help whatsoever.

Why do two ancient pensioners on public benefits need 250 bedrooms and 78 bathrooms, as well as several other expensive properties with no bedroom taxes?

Social housing is at an all time 24-year low. Many in London struggle to pay rent.

As head of state she is utterly useless.

A proper head of state would have summoned the PM to her office and demanded an end to austerity cuts for her subjects.

Instead greedy Mrs Windsor does what greedy Mrs Windsor does best: looks after number one.

Having never in my life encountered a tourist who said they visited the UK because of them, I remain extremely unconvinced by the retrograde argument that the Royal Family “bring us more financially in tourism than they take out.”

Over the past six years royal funding has increased by 145 per cent.

Put simply, the Royal Family isn’t worth it.

Denmark recently announced it was going to rein in the spending on their monarchy. Why can’t we?

Should we not be having an informed debate about the place of monarchy in 21st century Britain and about how they are funded before the devious multi-millionaire king Charles III plonks his posterior on the throne?

J ADAMS

Bloomsbury, Swindon