Turn on thread page Beta

Private schools should be banned? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should private schools be banned?
    Yes
    134
    21.65%
    No
    457
    73.83%
    Not Sure
    28
    4.52%

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adman32)
    A friend of mine comes from a relatively wealthy family and went to the same school as me up to last year. In September he left and enrolled in a private school. But I, and most people I know, would never be able to afford this.

    I know many on this forum are indeed from private schools, so please try and be neutral.

    Perhaps I'm too far on the left, but in my opinion noone should better opportunities simply because of parental wealth. All people should be born equal, and should find success with hard work and ability, not money.
    Who are you to tell Parents how to spend their hard earned money. You idiot, so if ut successful you shouldn't have the opportunity of sending yout kids to a better school than the local Comp.

    This is the sort of crazy ideas of some left thinking people that makes so many people detest left ideolagies.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lintu93)
    No point banning them. Some people can really benefit from private schools, such as people with learning disorders etc.

    But at the same time it does seem a bit unfair that education is considered a 'right' in this country, yet some people can buy their children a better education.

    Personally I think the solution is to improve state education, but whether to do this by improving comprehensives or by reintroducing the grammar school system, I don't know. (Perhaps both?)

    EDIT: Oh, and also there are some private schools which actually perform worse than the state schools in their area. So yeah, if you want to pay money to send your children to a low-performing school then I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to.
    But Left wing people do not want Grammer Schools because theyre "unequal" they are happier with everyone being in a bad situation rather than people having the opportunity to improve their own situation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    I think the issue lies here in the ambiguity of the word 'ban'- I began contributing to the thread based on the general debate, but I don't advocate demolishing the private schools or anything; merely that they become part of the state sector.
    By making them part of the state sector you are achieving the exact same thing as abolishing them though, as I mentioned to Win5ton, one of the reasons why these schools are so successful is because they mix like minded pupils who create an academic environment which is not disrupted by an undeniable precense that lies in our state system right now, it is not purely down to the facilities.

    (Original post by 098)
    I do think it would be 'better to bring state schools to the level of private schools'- I'm not suggesting to worsen private education for the sake of equality. However, it is impossible to level out two systems running completely at odds with each other; they must be combined. At the very least, private schools could share their resources (theatres, sports facilities) with state schools.
    But that is the inevitable consequence of your proposal? If you don't allow some form of selection or filtering process to take place [Whether it be by the parents wallet (private) or by the pupils ability (grammar)] then you are inevitably going to compromise the most vital ingredient, the pupils.
    However, I do agree that change is needed, and I would support more cross platforming between Private and state schools. It would be good to see additional incentives [possibly the retention of their charitable status? Times are tough after all] for Private Schools to share out facilities. I for one would love for a local comp in Plymouth to tie together with our Rugby Extra-curriculars, not only would it make for a stronger team but it would solidify social bonds and do exactly as you have described, break down the aforementioned social barriers.


    (Original post by 098)
    would you include police services within that?
    As for the feeling of guilt... isn't that what society is about? Helping those less fortunate than you? Don't you feel lucky for what you have and thus want to use your skills to help others?
    This might seem slightly selfish, but, no. The thing I am best at, Swimming, ultimately only benefits me. it is my sense of achievement and my willingness to go that extra mile, nobody elses, it is not going to benefit anybody else. I do not live my life for others, and I believe that deep down, no human does.
    BUT, I do believe in altruism, what I do not believe, and this ties right back into 'enforced morality', is that the state should enforce this altruism, rather than allow it to be freely given, as it should be.

    (Original post by 098)
    Your point about pupil engagement is EXACTLY why I believe private education IS unfair. An intelligent child in a state school often has to suffer within an environment whereby many of their peers do not want to work. This is why private school children also succeed in university interviews: in general, at these institutions, you are taught to keep up with your peers by articulating your views extremely strongly... at a state school (up to GCSE level at least) you learn the sense of when to keep quiet.
    This is why Grammar schools are really quite a good idea. You are acknowledging the very premise that Private schools exist to collect like minded individuals together, and Grammar schools do the same. So long as there is no filtering process, you will not collect like minded individuals together and make the best out of them.

    (Original post by 098)
    I believe that it is not right that pupils attending private schools should only mix with those in a similar financial or cultural situation to themselves. If the private and state systems were mixed, children from wealthy backgrounds would meet a greater variety of 'class' of person, teaching tolerance and acceptance. In return, those struggling at school would be inspired by an atmosphere of greater ambition, rather than the life they may lead at home which teaches them that the heights of university may be beyond their social reach.
    I think it is a HUGELY out-of-date concept that Privately schooled individuals are out of touch with people in state schools, are you proposing that the 17% or so of Private schooled individuals in the country do not socialise at all outside of their backgrounds? If so, we would probably know most of ourselves now.

    The issue with your premise is that, if you acknowledge disruptive pupils are damaging to education, then you would have to FILTER out A : The people who risk slowing down the system by not comprehending fast enough and B : The people who disrupt. This is essentially what a Scholarship system/Entrance exam is and does, and thus the change to the system should be to encourage MORE not less filtration.

    te school pupils can try to revert to the lazy argument of 'it's their own fault'.

    (Original post by 098)
    Private education is one of the ways in which society is so terribly segregated, leading to narrow-minded views such as the one you seem to imply above- that only pupils of 'good breeding' should mix with each other at school. This is wrong.
    I have to say it is rather frustrating that people associate 'good breeding' with any of this. It is a widely accepted fact that Middle class parents are more likely to be vicarious and push their children harder, it is simply a facet of parenthood. This does not necessarily mean all working class parents are neglectful people who do not push their kids, it is just statistically it is less likely. It has nothing to do with breeding, but everything to do with ideals and work ethic. If a working class parent instills a good work ethic because they don't want for their kids the same fate they had, and the kids listen, then they are far more likely to do better, intelligent or not.


    (Original post by 098)
    You suggest that those advocating a reform of the current education system are against the idea of the facilities & advantages available as part of a private school curriculum. Of course I agree that a private school can offer a far more flexible learning for aspiring athletes such as Tom Daley, whom you cited above.
    If you don't filter out the disruptive pupils who have shown no interest, how do you expect for them to adjust to high aspirations? Tom was ostracized heavilly during his time at State school, but after attending Private school he found it easier because people were well acquainted with success themselves, he found himself surrounded by people who were also high achievers in their respective fields, and he thus unlocked more potential within himself. This social cohesion has a big impact on a pupil.

    (Original post by 098)
    What I am against is the social exclutivity of the system, which means that solely those who can afford it (except for a very small percentage receiving bursaries) can benefit from these things. Tom Daley may have found private education more to his liking. Great. But every other non-olympic athlete might not have got the chance to transfer.
    I am not an Olympic athlete? Ok, so I am high up in what I do, but that is the point. Concentrating all these high achievers together A : Prevents them from being mocked by a system which by its premise is built on mediocrity and B : Unlocks more potential within these already high achievers.


    (Original post by 098)
    Your concluding point that 'aspirational and high achieving pupil will do better when they are surrounded by other aspirational and high achieving pupils' is completely valid. However, you seem to equate 'aspirational' with 'having parents able to afford private education'. Why should a disadvantaged pupil notl have the chance to learn with other aspirational people?
    Fixed it for you.

    Of course I don't, but that is again, the point of bursaries and grammar schools.


    I feel I also need to add the additional point, the reason Private schools have their facilities is because they lack any state assigned budget or curriculum, they are able to assign their own priorities without a top-down state system trying to dictate a one-size fits all for every school. This is partially why Cameron is trying to copy it with his academies flagship, to give schools more independence from bureaucratic and quite frankly ineffective state education procedures. If you were to try and fund the facilities for all existing private schools via the tax payer, including teachers etc, taxes would need a considerable hike or cuts would have to appear.
    Backtracking a bit, the National curriculum is a blunt tool, Private schools tailor their teaching and subjects however they choose in order to produce the best results, and they can do it on the fly. It is another major contributing factor to their success, not just for academic individuals, but sportsmen and musicians aswell.


    (Original post by 098)
    The argument I see from a lot of right-wing people is something along the lines of 'it's their own fault; they should work harder'. Society is not, and never has been, that simple. It is necessary to change our rigidly engrained class system in order to help break the cycle of the wealthy.
    Well, technically society has been like that until very recently, and for the majority it was goddam awful. I also feel the need to argue a class system is not really in existence anymore, the majority of people in the UK are middle class [Although some would not define themselves as such].


    Digressing a bit briefly, why do we necessarily need to break the cycle of the wealthy? [less than 10% of the worlds millionaires inherited their wealth].
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BluntForce)
    TS is an idiot if he is seriously suggesting private schools should be banned. Although I am not suprised liberals are hell bent on making the UK weak and poor.
    You really are shooting yourself in the foot here.
    I am a liberal, that does not make me left-wing. I am a right-wing liberal, get your bleeding definitions straight before you start throwing around stupid accusations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SArmo)
    Why should someone who worked hard for the sandwich have to share that sandwich?
    Because it would be a random act of kindness and the guy who worked hard for it shouldn't be so greedy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pirzer)
    Because it would be a random act of kindness and the guy who worked hard for it shouldn't be so greedy.
    So you would quite happily put a gun to his head and try and 'force' a random act of kindness? Doesn't seem so altruistic now, and infact resembles the polar opposite.
    Its the difference between given a homeless person money and him forcefully taking it from you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Education is not solely about getting good grades and going to a top university. Education is about one's overall character.
    I agree.

    I never said education was solely about grades, it's just an easy thing to measure/compare.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What a load of left wing *******s being spouted in here. Just because your parents prioritized annual holidays abroad/cigarettes/other expensive luxuries over a private education for you doesn't mean that you have the right to stop other parents from focusing on their children's education.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    Originally Posted by lightburns
    I disagree. It's better to try and pull up the bottom than cripple the top for the sake of equality.

    It's like having a village of 100 starving people. A minority have a sandwich. In this analogy, banning the private schools is like burning all the sandwiches. It doesn't benefit those who are worse off, and it makes those who are better off worse off. It's pointless.

    (I did not go to a private school)



    >>>>>

    It's refunding the bacon-and-chicken-and-mayo-and-avacado sandwich and then using the money to buy everyone a chicken sandwich,
    But that's not what would happen. The rich people would then buy the houses near the good state schools, and then it would become practically impossible for a poor person to get into a good school. The money that goes to the private school would not go to the poorer people if private schools were banned.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    But that's not what would happen. The rich people would then buy the houses near the good state schools, and then it would become practically impossible for a poor person to get into a good school. The money that goes to the private school would not go to the poorer people if private schools were banned.
    well that's all very well and good, but where did the sandwich go??? haha.

    what i'm suggesting is that the money currently going to private schools via fees could be put to greater use so that the level of all state schools could improve- so you wouldn't get so much of an area divide.

    I accept that this is in some ways idealistic but i'm sure that the level of disparity would at least be less than the current private/state divide.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Ad Hominems do not make your argument stronger.

    Even if there was an equal amount of motivated people in Stateschools in relation to all the grammar and private schools in the country, this still does not solve the problem that these individual's potential is diluted by a majority who simply would not and will not learn.
    Are you really going to challenge the fact that wealthy or middle class children are more likely to have been engaged in academic material prior to primary education? To do so would be unwise.
    I do not believe one sector monopolizes all the motivated people [Look at the example I gave you], but that does not alter the fact [repeating my earlier point] that they are negatively influenced by those with no motivation. The problem starts at home, and with the draconian system we currently have in the state sector which forces kids to all go for academia, rather than affording them the choice of vocationals which would arguably lead them to a far better paid future with a greater contribution to society.
    You are essentially constructing one gigantic strawman, by taking one part of my argument [That Middle class kids are more likely to be motivated by external forces, IE parents] , blowing it out of proportion [By assuming i meant that all poor people have no motivation], something which is plainly untrue [They are less likely relative to their middle class counterparts if we factor external forces] and then using it to debunk my entire argument [That a great deal of negative influence, REGARDLESS of class, can disrupt positive learning.]

    You cannot dispute that both Grammars and Privates grades are simply down to their teaching, else Grammars especially would be absolutely no different from their comprehensive counterparts. The only difference is they select their intake, and BAM, they are competing with the best Private schools on a level playing field, why? Because they have the most important resource for creating an environment of cohesion whilst simultaneously filtering out potentially disruptive individuals that will only slow them down.

    tl;dr - In short, the type of pupil [Most private schools also have academic selection tests similar to that of grammar schools ANYWAY, and won't hesitate to boot out weak candidates [as a good friend of mine discovered]] that makes up the majority of the school has a BIG impact on the learning process of all concerned.
    I negged you because you were stalking me and pretending we had a conversation which we didn't. You were being very strange.

    "Even if there was an equal amount of motivated people in Stateschools in relation to all the grammar and private schools in the country, this still does not solve the problem that these individual's potential is diluted by a majority who simply would not and will not learn."

    Where is your evidence that the majority of comprehensive and upper school children "will not learn". Try to not make generalized comments that lack any form of evidence.

    "Are you really going to challenge the fact that wealthy or middle class children are more likely to have been engaged in academic material prior to primary education? "

    I would not want to comment because I have not seen any evidence either way. If you have seen a study please post the link so I can examine the evidence that you have seen, it sounds like an interesting study.

    You state:

    "In school however, people tend to converge on likeminded individuals, the sports people go with the sports individuals, the indies go to the indie crowd, etc. This applies to the wealthy and the poor too."

    Then contradict:

    "I do not believe one sector monopolizes all the motivated people [Look at the example I gave you], but that does not alter the fact [repeating my earlier point] that they are negatively influenced by those with no motivation."

    Why would the bright kids be "influenced" in their actions by people that they do not interact with?

    You state:

    " ... forces kids to all go for academia, rather than affording them the choice of vocationals which would arguably lead them to a far better paid future"

    Kids are "forced" to have a basic knowledge of a few disciplines to a basic level up till sixteen. At this point they can choose to purse an academic future or a vocational one. You are not seriously suggesting that kids should specialize at a younger age or come out of school without mastering the basics of English, Maths and a few other subjects?

    "You are essentially constructing one gigantic strawman"

    You are essentially doing the same with my argument, by twisting my original intention so that it suits your strange logical assumptions.

    "filtering out potentially disruptive individuals that will only slow them down"

    You are yet again making a sweeping assumption that more intelligent people are likely to be less disruptive. Again, you lack any evidence in your statement. For what its worth, I can name you many highly disruptive children who have managed to get into grammar school.

    " In short, the type of pupil [Most private schools also have academic selection tests similar to that of grammar schools ANYWAY, and won't hesitate to boot out weak candidates [as a good friend of mine discovered]] that makes up the majority of the school has a BIG impact on the learning process of all concerned"

    I can again name you lots of "weak" and disruptive people at grammar schools but trading anecdotal evidence is not going to progress a discussion.

    About the "sporty" kids, I do not know a lot about this area but I do know a lot of British sportsmen came from comprehensives and they are obviously succeeding.

    To conclude, a lot of your arguments lack any sort of evidence and are merely just assumptions on matters (for example comprehensives) that you have little first had experience of (forgive me if I am wrong).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    well that's all very well and good, but where did the sandwich go??? haha.

    what i'm suggesting is that the money currently going to private schools via fees could be put to greater use so that the level of all state schools could improve- so you wouldn't get so much of an area divide.

    I accept that this is in some ways idealistic but i'm sure that the level of disparity would at least be less than the current private/state divide.
    Hahahaaa, okay, lets get the sandwich into this.

    Rest of the village is allergic to the sandwich (nuts or dairy or something). If the non-allergic people didn't have their sandwiches (because the rest of the village had burnt them because it was unfair), then they would run and take first dibs on the rest of the food (they're fitter due to having eaten more sandwiches).

    It could be put to greater use.. but it wouldn't happen. Plus, I think it's a good thing to be able to pay your way up if you can. If you go to hospital and you are told "right, this thousand pound surgery will save your life.. you're going on a waiting list, you'll probably die before it happens...", then a whole bunch of people on the waiting list would say "look, I have one thousand pounds... train more surgeons, and we'll pay for our lives!"
    Yes, it's not fair. But it's senseless to not be able to pay your way out of a sticky situation.
    • PS Helper
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by K the Failure)
    Get a bursary.
    This. I managed it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win5ton)
    I negged you because you were stalking me and pretending we had a conversation which we didn't. You were being very strange.

    "Even if there was an equal amount of motivated people in Stateschools in relation to all the grammar and private schools in the country, this still does not solve the problem that these individual's potential is diluted by a majority who simply would not and will not learn."

    Where is your evidence that the majority of comprehensive and upper school children "will not learn". Try to not make generalized comments that lack any form of evidence.

    "Are you really going to challenge the fact that wealthy or middle class children are more likely to have been engaged in academic material prior to primary education? "

    I would not want to comment because I have not seen any evidence either way. If you have seen a study please post the link so I can examine the evidence that you have seen, it sounds like an interesting study.

    You state:

    "In school however, people tend to converge on likeminded individuals, the sports people go with the sports individuals, the indies go to the indie crowd, etc. This applies to the wealthy and the poor too."

    Then contradict:

    "I do not believe one sector monopolizes all the motivated people [Look at the example I gave you], but that does not alter the fact [repeating my earlier point] that they are negatively influenced by those with no motivation."

    Why would the bright kids be "influenced" in their actions by people that they do not interact with?

    You state:

    " ... forces kids to all go for academia, rather than affording them the choice of vocationals which would arguably lead them to a far better paid future"

    Kids are "forced" to have a basic knowledge of a few disciplines to a basic level up till sixteen. At this point they can choose to purse an academic future or a vocational one. You are not seriously suggesting that kids should specialize at a younger age or come out of school without mastering the basics of English, Maths and a few other subjects?

    "You are essentially constructing one gigantic strawman"

    You are essentially doing the same with my argument, by twisting my original intention so that it suits your strange logical assumptions.

    "filtering out potentially disruptive individuals that will only slow them down"

    You are yet again making a sweeping assumption that more intelligent people are likely to be less disruptive. Again, you lack any evidence in your statement. For what its worth, I can name you many highly disruptive children who have managed to get into grammar school.

    " In short, the type of pupil [Most private schools also have academic selection tests similar to that of grammar schools ANYWAY, and won't hesitate to boot out weak candidates [as a good friend of mine discovered]] that makes up the majority of the school has a BIG impact on the learning process of all concerned"

    I can again name you lots of "weak" and disruptive people at grammar schools but trading anecdotal evidence is not going to progress a discussion.

    About the "sporty" kids, I do not know a lot about this area but I do know a lot of British sportsmen came from comprehensives and they are obviously succeeding.

    To conclude, a lot of your arguments lack any sort of evidence and are merely just assumptions on matters (for example comprehensives) that you have little first had experience of (forgive me if I am wrong).
    What!? Stalking you?

    Sorry now you have me confused I do not recall stalking you at ANY point in my life, online or otherwise, kindly point out where I have been stalking you please.

    It needs no evidence because it is what one calls a posteroi, a logical assumption based on logical thinking.

    Again, this is what we call a posteroi. I guarantee, although I have no studies to hand and quite frankly, cannot be bothered, that if you were to research the subject you would end up with conclusive, hard, concrete evidence that middle class pupils, even in state schools, on average, perform better.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...-better-school
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1...0study&f=false
    http://workingclassstudies.wordpress...nts-seriously/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29
    http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6070596
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n32127511/

    [look, i even found some, the internet is crawling with it].
    How many would you like?

    That depends entirely on how you define 'basic'. A child could easilly be moved to a school where they are taught mathematics and English language, but spend the rest of their time specializing into vocational subjects of their choice. We are talking around a similar age as to when children decide what GCSEs they want to take.

    I am not creating a strawman out of your argument since your argument is to debunk my argument, your counter to my argument is summed up, by your own words, as a single simple sentence with a broad generalisation that I believe all poor people are unmotivated and all rich people are motivated, quite plainly, this is not the case, however statistically because of work ethic this is more likely, and i challenge you to find any statistical evidence which proves otherwise. You might say the burden of proof falls upon me, but pretty much everybody else on the forum is aware of this fact and take it as priori.

    Actually, an intelligent pupil will really [once again priori] only be disruptive if the class is moving too slow and they are bored. Because by definition, if they are intelligent, they will realise that they need to work in order to succeed. [The definition of intelligence used in this argument is not necessarily relating to CAPACITY for cognitive thinking, but current cognitive thinking, common sense, and the realisation that application of the former cognitive reasoning achieves results]. Simply put, Intelligent pupils ARE through the logic I just demonstrated, going to be disruptive for a completely different reason as opposed to the disruption found by underachieving individuals in any school sector [and believe me, they are not just confined to the state sector].

    Indeed, trading anecdotal evidence is not going to move the discussion forward, but the MAJORITY of the people involved at a high achieving grammar or public are going to be individuals who don't disrupt, the proportions will inevitably be different because it is less likely for an intelligent person to be disruptive because they don't understand.

    Saying you can 'name' loads of unmotivated individuals at grammar/public school does not provide a sufficient basis for an argument unless you happen to know atleast a massively substantial number of the current Private/Grammar sector pupil body. However, I can certainly say most Public schools have entrance tests, because it is a priori, how do I know it? Because Private schools like to maintain a consistent level of standards between themselves, and will do their best to select both academically and socially.

    You may know Olympic sportswomen who have done this that and the other, but I am fairly sure that they did not have access to the training facilities needed for them to do the more elaborate sports at a young age, nor did they have access to dedicated gyms, physios etc DURING school time, the national curriculum is not flexible enough in its current state to sustain this. [The examples you gave most likely pertain to people who have only become National/Olympic sportsmen AFTER leaving school at 16, and not beforehand].

    My arguments lack no evidence, on the contrary, I am making claims which are backed by Common sense and posteroi.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwerty54321)
    Well it's a lot harder than it is for the middle class children - why is that fair? Where is this meritocratic system?
    Why? Anyone can get some books and study in a library and get good exam results, regardless of class.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by planetconwy1)
    I think the idea would be to provide everyone with a sandwich?
    Everyone has a sandwich, just some people have smoked salmon sandwiches and some have corned beef. Nobody will starve.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    well that's all very well and good, but where did the sandwich go??? haha.

    what i'm suggesting is that the money currently going to private schools via fees could be put to greater use so that the level of all state schools could improve- so you wouldn't get so much of an area divide.

    I accept that this is in some ways idealistic but i'm sure that the level of disparity would at least be less than the current private/state divide.
    So the parents who are willing to spend £10K per year on private schools should just pay that amount in taxes?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Grammar Schools FTW!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why do peole seem to be under the impression that if private schools were banned, all the money spent on fees would be able to be redistributed to state schools? private schools are private, and as such all the money they make is private money.

    as most people seem to agree with, banning private schools is just plain harsh: did it ever occur to you that private school parents can be easily a lot poorer than state school parents, because all their money goes on their childrens education...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)

    It's refunding the bacon-and-chicken-and-mayo-and-avacado sandwich and then using the money to buy everyone a chicken sandwich,
    not a fan of chicken sandwiches. can we just compromise on ham and tomato?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,621

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.