I expected grammar schools to be being bashed when I clicked on this thread, but I honestly can't believe what I've read here! It seems like the gist of the OPs argument is that they're against the return to secondary moderns, not grammar schools per se.
You say that grammar schools aren't "real" grammar schools nowadays because they have individual entrance tests; you clearly haven't looked into this properly. I currently live in Warwickshire, and I used to live I'm Buckinghamshire, and both 11+ tests there are for all the grammar schools in the county and is run by the local authority.
The school I've attended since year seven is a mixed grammar school in Warwickshire in Town A. There is a boys only grammar in Town B and a girl's only grammar in Town B. Town A also has a comprehensive school and a Catholic school, Town B has a comprehensive school. Nobody in the local area has a problem with the grammar school system, because all six schools are equally good, and that's what's let them survive until today. I would understand how the system would seem unfair if the schools performed drastically differently, and perhaps they do in other counties - I just don't know - but what is the problem with a system everyone is happy with?
You claim the comprehensive schools can't be "true comprehensives" because the "top layer of pupils" is gone; that's complete rubbish. They are incomparable to secondary moderns, because nowadays, we all have the same opportunities. If you go to a grammar school, you sit GCSEs, if you go to a high school, you sit GCSEs. It's not as though by not passing the 11+ you have drastically changed your future; you haven't. Everyone leaves year 11 with equal opportunities.
I'm now in the non selective (apart from A at GCSE entrance requirements, but that's the same as the comprehensive in Town B's sixth form entrance requirements) sixth form, and so know a lot of different people from the different schools, and I have to say, the biggest difference the grammar school system has made seems to be to those who just about didn't get in, and went to the comprehensive or Catholic schools. They were top in their schoolS, which meant that they received a lot of attention that they wouldn't have otherwise, and achieved very similar GCSEs to those from the grammars.
The other thing is, not many people at all in my year were tutored, because tutoring doesn't help with our county's 11+. It's a logic test, and they change it up every year. Even those who'd been tutored said they'd never seen anything like it. It's not your standard verbal / non verbal reasoning. Not that tutoring doesn't have advantages; it must teach you exam technique, which you don't have as a 10, 11 year old, but as far as content goes, you can't prepare for it. It's kind of like the mini aptitude tests they use for admissions to medicine in that respect.
Anyway, I didn't mean to go on for so long. I think you ought to do research into different counties grammar school systems before you draw such harsh conclusions, mostly unfounded. Also, you seem to be getting then and now mixed up. All I know is that Warwickshire has a great system which everyone is happy with and which lets people leave after year 11 with some great GCSE results.