http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... gay-rights

You'd think that sort of idiocy would be a much bigger story.

If they want to spend £63k then put it into sex education in exisiting schools in the area would be a better way to go.

er...wouldn't it legally be discriminating? If it turned out to actually be a good school i.e. high position in the league tables, you can bet your.. err house that someone would challenge their selection criteria to get their kid in, regardless of the intention of the school being there. Once the case was won/lost (depending on your perspective), the school would rapidly end up having exactly the same demographic as any other school.

Seems a bit silly really.

"My child is special"

This is just more segregation of "not normals", I thought we had learn our lesson in the 30s and 40s in Europe? Or the 50s and 60s in America?

Yes, in the spirit of acceptance and inclusion, let's segregate them and underline how different they are.

WTAF?

Yes, but this is positive discrimination, and that's OK <rolls eyes>.

Hitler's greatest crime was sending minorities to special schools so they don't get bullied.

My thoughts exactly.

Segregation occurs when minorities are denied access to a resource against their wishes.
Exclusivity occurs when a resource is only available to a minority.
The concept of segregation only applies here if the plan is to evict pupils from normal schools.

The planned school - for which they are only running a [LIFTED] feasibility study - may not be a good plan. It could be that giving them an exclusive alternative is counter-productive for many reasons. But invoking memories of Jim Crow and Adolph Hitler is just foolish.

To segregate is to separate or set apart from others or from the main body or group. Not to be confused with racial segregation, which might better fit your description.

Woah, who invoked Godwin? Likening complaints about proposed voluntary segregation to Jim Crow is BS. Feasibility study or not and voluntary or not it still sets aside those people as different and does nothing to improve acceptance by society as a whole.

I think you'll find that most dictionaries offer two definitions of segregation. The use of the term in this thread has implied pejorative connotations.



big_D invoked "30s and 40s in Europe? Or the 50s and 60s in America". Those are examples of enforced segregation. Auschwitz was not a lifestyle choice.

Nobody here has shown any interest in the rationale for considering the provision of this school. I don't know what it is, but rich families have a range of exclusive schools to send their kids to, this doesn't inflict segregation and inferiority on those kids. Jewish schools exist - and that is not Hitler's dark legacy.

These people should be allowed to make their case for this school without knee-jerk prejudice. If pupils wish to attend such an institution, perhaps it should be provided without other people inflicting reduced choice on those kids for the sake of a bankrupt purity test.

Dave, indirectly. And there is a world of difference between choosing to go and live or learn somewhere where lots of the people are like you and being forced to go and live or learn somewhere because the people where you are are not like you.


Quite so. You don't promote acceptance for something by separating it away.

Is it right for 40 kids in Manchester to bear the brunt of your desire for social engineering? Is their sacrifice just the price that has to be paid?

Oh, come on, as it stands those kids are already bearing the brunt, as have thousands of others up until now - I haven't singled anyone out for an experiment, I'm suggesting their idea is the experiment and a poorly conceived one at that. Isn't education, at a young age, a better way to build tolerance and acceptance of differing sexual preferences? Would you just rather kick the can a bit further down the road instead?

What I'm saying is that if somebody is investigating setting up a new type of school, they might be doing so because they anticipate some benefit for the pupils who might wish to attend. Perhaps it is worth finding out what that benefit, to those particular kids, might be rather than simply conscripting innocents for your crusade.

If we are objecting to prejudice, perhaps we shouldn't be pre-judging this issue before the feasibility study is even done.