Children 'crammed into supersize classes'

Children 'crammed into supersize classes'

Children 'crammed into supersize classes'

First published in Education

INFANTS across the county are being crammed into ‘supersized’ classes because of a growing shortage of places, new figures show.

The number of five to seven-year-olds in classes of more than 30 – the legal limit, except in exceptional circumstances – has almost trebled in just four years.

In January, the total stood at 2,113, up from 717 when the Coalition came to power – an increase of 1,396, or 195 per cent, according to figures uncovered by Labour.

The squeeze is affecting Southampton, where there are 219 pupils in plus-30 classes, a rise of 77 per cent since 2010.

But the problems are much greater across Hampshire, which has experienced a leap of 223 per cent, leaving 1,707 pupils in groups above the limit.

Labour claimed the figures showed limited money was being diverted from state primary schools to fund Education Secretary Michael Gove’s controversial ‘free school’ programme.

Very few free schools have opened in Hampshire compared with other areas, despite the county having one of fastest rises in pupil numbers.

David Cameron promised “small schools with smaller class sizes” before the last election, Labour pointed out.

Tristram Hunt, Labour’s education spokesman, said: “Their decisions have meant thousands more children are being crammed into overcrowded classes, threatening school standards.

“They have created a crisis in school places, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on free schools in areas that already have enough school places – and children are paying the price.”

But the Department for Education (DfE) blamed increases in pupil numbers dating back a decade and said local authorities had been given £5bn to spend on new school places.

A limit on infant school class sizes was introduced by Labour in the late 1990s, after it made a ceiling of 30 pupils a key election issue.

More recently, Mr Gove has relaxed the regulations, allowing schools to breach the limit for 12 months in some cases, provided numbers are brought down the following year.

Some experts argue larger classes make it harder for infants to learn, particularly those that need extra help or find it harder to pay attention.

But Hampshire County Council executive member for education, Cllr Peter Edgar said the adoption of “flexible learning” is actually breaking down classes into smaller sessions.

He said the emphasis on group work, personalised plans for each youngster and the help from teaching assistants means the whole class is rarely taught by just one adult.

He said: “It’s much more flexible and it isn’t like the Victorian times where all the learning is in a big class.

“I don’t see evidence of high pupil teacher ratios when I go round schools.

“We will examine these new statistics very carefully and we will work with schools to make sure there are the best possible teacher pupil ratios.”

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:16am Mon 16 Jun 14

townieboy says...

Funny id have thought the reason classes are overcrowded would be that the extra immigrant factor ? theses east european mothers seem to have a minium of 3 kids. and a baby when i see them all on the swings in my local area after the school day.
Funny id have thought the reason classes are overcrowded would be that the extra immigrant factor ? theses east european mothers seem to have a minium of 3 kids. and a baby when i see them all on the swings in my local area after the school day. townieboy
  • Score: -1

7:35am Mon 16 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

The State takes an enormous amount for education-just does it badly, like most everything else it does-and there's no excuse. That said , large classes don't seem to prejudice our Asian competitors. And yes, immigrants do reproduce in excess of the replacement rate and the English don't, so that'll be a factor, but not emphasised by Labour, the party that gave us the open door immigration policy.
The State takes an enormous amount for education-just does it badly, like most everything else it does-and there's no excuse. That said , large classes don't seem to prejudice our Asian competitors. And yes, immigrants do reproduce in excess of the replacement rate and the English don't, so that'll be a factor, but not emphasised by Labour, the party that gave us the open door immigration policy. Dai Rear
  • Score: -4

7:48am Mon 16 Jun 14

Woolston ollie says...

Schools,hospitals doctors surgeries, everything is getting overloaded most of it is down to our lax immigration policies.
About time we shut up shop before we sink any deeper.
Schools,hospitals doctors surgeries, everything is getting overloaded most of it is down to our lax immigration policies. About time we shut up shop before we sink any deeper. Woolston ollie
  • Score: 11

8:59am Mon 16 Jun 14

Bexybow87 says...

Be careful using immigration as a problem.. The keyboard warriors will start calling you all racist!!
Be careful using immigration as a problem.. The keyboard warriors will start calling you all racist!! Bexybow87
  • Score: -1

9:23am Mon 16 Jun 14

derek james says...

we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker!
we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker! derek james
  • Score: -5

10:14am Mon 16 Jun 14

Woolston ollie says...

What kind of education are British children getting in a class with 5, 6 or more different nationalities not being able to speak English in them.
What kind of education are British children getting in a class with 5, 6 or more different nationalities not being able to speak English in them. Woolston ollie
  • Score: 4

12:27pm Mon 16 Jun 14

southy says...

The problem is Government wanting what they have in America super size schools, Schools have been closed down in favour of these new super size schools foring kids to go greater distance.
A local example would be Oaklands and Millbrook Schools being replace with the new Oasis School on 5 acres. Both of the old schools have been sold off to developers.
The problem is Government wanting what they have in America super size schools, Schools have been closed down in favour of these new super size schools foring kids to go greater distance. A local example would be Oaklands and Millbrook Schools being replace with the new Oasis School on 5 acres. Both of the old schools have been sold off to developers. southy
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Mon 16 Jun 14

freefinker says...

derek james wrote:
we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker!
.. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice.
As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker![/p][/quote].. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice. As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist. freefinker
  • Score: 1

12:44pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

southy wrote:
The problem is Government wanting what they have in America super size schools, Schools have been closed down in favour of these new super size schools foring kids to go greater distance.
A local example would be Oaklands and Millbrook Schools being replace with the new Oasis School on 5 acres. Both of the old schools have been sold off to developers.
I think factory comps have been with us these last 4 decades Southy. Idea was more facilities available under one roof. But the article is about ratios, not size of "campus"
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The problem is Government wanting what they have in America super size schools, Schools have been closed down in favour of these new super size schools foring kids to go greater distance. A local example would be Oaklands and Millbrook Schools being replace with the new Oasis School on 5 acres. Both of the old schools have been sold off to developers.[/p][/quote]I think factory comps have been with us these last 4 decades Southy. Idea was more facilities available under one roof. But the article is about ratios, not size of "campus" Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

1:42pm Mon 16 Jun 14

sophisticated says...

Dont you love tony and his croanies, what a legacy.
Dont you love tony and his croanies, what a legacy. sophisticated
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Mon 16 Jun 14

southy says...

Dai Rear wrote:
southy wrote:
The problem is Government wanting what they have in America super size schools, Schools have been closed down in favour of these new super size schools foring kids to go greater distance.
A local example would be Oaklands and Millbrook Schools being replace with the new Oasis School on 5 acres. Both of the old schools have been sold off to developers.
I think factory comps have been with us these last 4 decades Southy. Idea was more facilities available under one roof. But the article is about ratios, not size of "campus"
Not this type have not though the 50's and 60's and 70's the idea was to reduce class and school size and build more schools, 80's, 90's 00's and now 10's have been going the opposite way, bigger classes bigger schools and a reduction in the number of schools.
more under one roof did not work and still don't work as it is limited to how many can use facilties like in Sports there is only a certain number that can be in a school team, reducing the number of schools reduces the number of kids that can take part.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The problem is Government wanting what they have in America super size schools, Schools have been closed down in favour of these new super size schools foring kids to go greater distance. A local example would be Oaklands and Millbrook Schools being replace with the new Oasis School on 5 acres. Both of the old schools have been sold off to developers.[/p][/quote]I think factory comps have been with us these last 4 decades Southy. Idea was more facilities available under one roof. But the article is about ratios, not size of "campus"[/p][/quote]Not this type have not though the 50's and 60's and 70's the idea was to reduce class and school size and build more schools, 80's, 90's 00's and now 10's have been going the opposite way, bigger classes bigger schools and a reduction in the number of schools. more under one roof did not work and still don't work as it is limited to how many can use facilties like in Sports there is only a certain number that can be in a school team, reducing the number of schools reduces the number of kids that can take part. southy
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Mon 16 Jun 14

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
derek james wrote:
we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker!
.. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice.
As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.
yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker![/p][/quote].. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice. As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.[/p][/quote]yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places southy
  • Score: -1

2:06pm Mon 16 Jun 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
derek james wrote:
we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker!
.. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice.
As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.
yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places
Yes southy, that's strictly true.
And there may well have been a tiny number of people using the inhospitable tundra that was S and SW Britain; at least on a seasonal basis.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker![/p][/quote].. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice. As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.[/p][/quote]yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places[/p][/quote]Yes southy, that's strictly true. And there may well have been a tiny number of people using the inhospitable tundra that was S and SW Britain; at least on a seasonal basis. freefinker
  • Score: 1

2:17pm Mon 16 Jun 14

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
derek james wrote:
we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker!
.. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice.
As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.
yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places
Yes southy, that's strictly true.
And there may well have been a tiny number of people using the inhospitable tundra that was S and SW Britain; at least on a seasonal basis.
Ever read up on Chedder Gorge Man well its a woman really and one that was over 6 foot tall, lived in the caves at the time of the Ice age was its deepest
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker![/p][/quote].. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice. As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.[/p][/quote]yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places[/p][/quote]Yes southy, that's strictly true. And there may well have been a tiny number of people using the inhospitable tundra that was S and SW Britain; at least on a seasonal basis.[/p][/quote]Ever read up on Chedder Gorge Man well its a woman really and one that was over 6 foot tall, lived in the caves at the time of the Ice age was its deepest southy
  • Score: -3

2:37pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

"we are all immigrants". Well we're not, are we? Because the word has an evolved meaning. It wasn't made up 10 minutes ago by the extreme left like "asylum seeker" which means "illegal immigrant" and no doubt we're just about to get "trafficked" which means-you guessed it-illegal immigrant."
And yes they do contribute more children to the schools.
What's the "Science denying conspiracy theorist"? Something to do with "the-sky-will-fall-o
n-our-head-if-we-don
't-build-more-useles
s-windmills Religion?
"we are all immigrants". Well we're not, are we? Because the word has an evolved meaning. It wasn't made up 10 minutes ago by the extreme left like "asylum seeker" which means "illegal immigrant" and no doubt we're just about to get "trafficked" which means-you guessed it-illegal immigrant." And yes they do contribute more children to the schools. What's the "Science denying conspiracy theorist"? Something to do with "the-sky-will-fall-o n-our-head-if-we-don 't-build-more-useles s-windmills Religion? Dai Rear
  • Score: 3

3:19pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Charlie Bucket says...

townieboy wrote:
Funny id have thought the reason classes are overcrowded would be that the extra immigrant factor ? theses east european mothers seem to have a minium of 3 kids. and a baby when i see them all on the swings in my local area after the school day.
And where do you live that has a playground that has the swings capacity for that number of children? I mean, you're obviously talking about a lot of east European women to be able to state this, and with at least 4 kids each that has to be a world record size swingset. Have you notified Norris McWhirter?
[quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote: Funny id have thought the reason classes are overcrowded would be that the extra immigrant factor ? theses east european mothers seem to have a minium of 3 kids. and a baby when i see them all on the swings in my local area after the school day.[/p][/quote]And where do you live that has a playground that has the swings capacity for that number of children? I mean, you're obviously talking about a lot of east European women to be able to state this, and with at least 4 kids each that has to be a world record size swingset. Have you notified Norris McWhirter? Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 1

3:20pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"we are all immigrants". Well we're not, are we? Because the word has an evolved meaning. It wasn't made up 10 minutes ago by the extreme left like "asylum seeker" which means "illegal immigrant" and no doubt we're just about to get "trafficked" which means-you guessed it-illegal immigrant."
And yes they do contribute more children to the schools.
What's the "Science denying conspiracy theorist"? Something to do with "the-sky-will-fall-o

n-our-head-if-we-don

't-build-more-useles

s-windmills Religion?
Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat".
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "we are all immigrants". Well we're not, are we? Because the word has an evolved meaning. It wasn't made up 10 minutes ago by the extreme left like "asylum seeker" which means "illegal immigrant" and no doubt we're just about to get "trafficked" which means-you guessed it-illegal immigrant." And yes they do contribute more children to the schools. What's the "Science denying conspiracy theorist"? Something to do with "the-sky-will-fall-o n-our-head-if-we-don 't-build-more-useles s-windmills Religion?[/p][/quote]Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat". Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 1

3:38pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

"Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat". No. Immigrants' larger families are part of the problem and that is clearly not in dispute. But mainly it's the incompetence of a State which gets a lot of money for "education""educatio
n"
"education" and isn't at all good at getting value for that money
"Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat". No. Immigrants' larger families are part of the problem and that is clearly not in dispute. But mainly it's the incompetence of a State which gets a lot of money for "education""educatio n" "education" and isn't at all good at getting value for that money Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat". No. Immigrants' larger families are part of the problem and that is clearly not in dispute. But mainly it's the incompetence of a State which gets a lot of money for "education""educatio

n"
"education" and isn't at all good at getting value for that money
Sources or GTFO.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat". No. Immigrants' larger families are part of the problem and that is clearly not in dispute. But mainly it's the incompetence of a State which gets a lot of money for "education""educatio n" "education" and isn't at all good at getting value for that money[/p][/quote]Sources or GTFO. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
"Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat". No. Immigrants' larger families are part of the problem and that is clearly not in dispute. But mainly it's the incompetence of a State which gets a lot of money for "education""educatio


n"
"education" and isn't at all good at getting value for that money
Sources or GTFO.
Is all this offensiveness a form of psychotherapy or are you, as appears to be the case, just an unpleasant chav?
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat". No. Immigrants' larger families are part of the problem and that is clearly not in dispute. But mainly it's the incompetence of a State which gets a lot of money for "education""educatio n" "education" and isn't at all good at getting value for that money[/p][/quote]Sources or GTFO.[/p][/quote]Is all this offensiveness a form of psychotherapy or are you, as appears to be the case, just an unpleasant chav? Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
"Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat". No. Immigrants' larger families are part of the problem and that is clearly not in dispute. But mainly it's the incompetence of a State which gets a lot of money for "education""educatio



n"
"education" and isn't at all good at getting value for that money
Sources or GTFO.
Is all this offensiveness a form of psychotherapy or are you, as appears to be the case, just an unpleasant chav?
I take it you can't provide sources for your mad wild claims then. Ok thanks for admitting you're just making things up to support your racist beliefs.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "Yes. It has evolved. It now means "scapegoat". No. Immigrants' larger families are part of the problem and that is clearly not in dispute. But mainly it's the incompetence of a State which gets a lot of money for "education""educatio n" "education" and isn't at all good at getting value for that money[/p][/quote]Sources or GTFO.[/p][/quote]Is all this offensiveness a form of psychotherapy or are you, as appears to be the case, just an unpleasant chav?[/p][/quote]I take it you can't provide sources for your mad wild claims then. Ok thanks for admitting you're just making things up to support your racist beliefs. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Bexybow87 wrote:
Be careful using immigration as a problem.. The keyboard warriors will start calling you all racist!!
You realise that predicting something isn't the same as refuting it, right?
[quote][p][bold]Bexybow87[/bold] wrote: Be careful using immigration as a problem.. The keyboard warriors will start calling you all racist!![/p][/quote]You realise that predicting something isn't the same as refuting it, right? Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Waryone says...

I'm not going to be careful what I post and am very far from racist! It is obvious, immigration, is a large factor in overcrowding, so are readily available benefits which are there to help families! Families who are on benefits usually( not all) have many children. People who work there **** off can't afford too many! Hate me all you like COULDN'T CARE! That's what is wrong with our country, we are getting ridiculously soft at speaking our minds.
I'm not going to be careful what I post and am very far from racist! It is obvious, immigration, is a large factor in overcrowding, so are readily available benefits which are there to help families! Families who are on benefits usually( not all) have many children. People who work there **** off can't afford too many! Hate me all you like COULDN'T CARE! That's what is wrong with our country, we are getting ridiculously soft at speaking our minds. Waryone
  • Score: 8

5:08pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

If it's "rac-ist" to perceive you as an offensive chav, then guilty, but then "rac-ist" is just a vacuous boo word for the left and I am "rac-ist" anyway because I don't buy any of your ghastly authoritarian dogma.
If it's "rac-ist" to perceive you as an offensive chav, then guilty, but then "rac-ist" is just a vacuous boo word for the left and I am "rac-ist" anyway because I don't buy any of your ghastly authoritarian dogma. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Waryone wrote:
I'm not going to be careful what I post and am very far from racist! It is obvious, immigration, is a large factor in overcrowding, so are readily available benefits which are there to help families! Families who are on benefits usually( not all) have many children. People who work there **** off can't afford too many! Hate me all you like COULDN'T CARE! That's what is wrong with our country, we are getting ridiculously soft at speaking our minds.
You should start shaking with fear. Old Hyacinth Bucket is going to be really, really offensive to you.
[quote][p][bold]Waryone[/bold] wrote: I'm not going to be careful what I post and am very far from racist! It is obvious, immigration, is a large factor in overcrowding, so are readily available benefits which are there to help families! Families who are on benefits usually( not all) have many children. People who work there **** off can't afford too many! Hate me all you like COULDN'T CARE! That's what is wrong with our country, we are getting ridiculously soft at speaking our minds.[/p][/quote]You should start shaking with fear. Old Hyacinth Bucket is going to be really, really offensive to you. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Mon 16 Jun 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
derek james wrote:
we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker!
.. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice.
As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.
yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places
Yes southy, that's strictly true.
And there may well have been a tiny number of people using the inhospitable tundra that was S and SW Britain; at least on a seasonal basis.
Ever read up on Chedder Gorge Man well its a woman really and one that was over 6 foot tall, lived in the caves at the time of the Ice age was its deepest
Yes southy I know about Cheddar Man.
But of course you are wrong. This human is about 9000 years old which puts it well and truly towards the beginning of the present interglacial and much, much later than 'at the time of the Ice age was its deepest'.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker![/p][/quote].. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice. As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.[/p][/quote]yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places[/p][/quote]Yes southy, that's strictly true. And there may well have been a tiny number of people using the inhospitable tundra that was S and SW Britain; at least on a seasonal basis.[/p][/quote]Ever read up on Chedder Gorge Man well its a woman really and one that was over 6 foot tall, lived in the caves at the time of the Ice age was its deepest[/p][/quote]Yes southy I know about Cheddar Man. But of course you are wrong. This human is about 9000 years old which puts it well and truly towards the beginning of the present interglacial and much, much later than 'at the time of the Ice age was its deepest'. freefinker
  • Score: 1

6:37pm Mon 16 Jun 14

bigfella777 says...

This is Labours legacy. No strategy, no ideas, not a clue
This is Labours legacy. No strategy, no ideas, not a clue bigfella777
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Mon 16 Jun 14

derek james says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
derek james wrote:
we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker!
.. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice.
As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.
yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places
Yes southy, that's strictly true.
And there may well have been a tiny number of people using the inhospitable tundra that was S and SW Britain; at least on a seasonal basis.
Ever read up on Chedder Gorge Man well its a woman really and one that was over 6 foot tall, lived in the caves at the time of the Ice age was its deepest
Yes southy I know about Cheddar Man.
But of course you are wrong. This human is about 9000 years old which puts it well and truly towards the beginning of the present interglacial and much, much later than 'at the time of the Ice age was its deepest'.
i'm still waiting for you to explain why we need all these extra immigrants when there's clearly more than enough, expect anarchy in 15-20 years time when they are all living 8 in two bed terraced houses .did i hear you say build more houses?, yes use up agricultural land when we can't grow enough to feed ourselves at the moment and we're in competition with developing countries for scarcer food resources from oversubscribed suppliers.there's always cannibalism, start with the old as in the film soylent green!
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: we need more immigrants so we're told by the likes of the deluded freefinker![/p][/quote].. we are all immigrants. 15,000 years ago this place was covered in ice. As for deluded? Wow. At least I'm not a science denying conspiracy theorist.[/p][/quote]yes that we are, but 15,000 years ago this part of Britain was not under ice the south and south west free of ice, but yes the majority of Britain was under ice some parts was around a mile deep in places[/p][/quote]Yes southy, that's strictly true. And there may well have been a tiny number of people using the inhospitable tundra that was S and SW Britain; at least on a seasonal basis.[/p][/quote]Ever read up on Chedder Gorge Man well its a woman really and one that was over 6 foot tall, lived in the caves at the time of the Ice age was its deepest[/p][/quote]Yes southy I know about Cheddar Man. But of course you are wrong. This human is about 9000 years old which puts it well and truly towards the beginning of the present interglacial and much, much later than 'at the time of the Ice age was its deepest'.[/p][/quote]i'm still waiting for you to explain why we need all these extra immigrants when there's clearly more than enough, expect anarchy in 15-20 years time when they are all living 8 in two bed terraced houses .did i hear you say build more houses?, yes use up agricultural land when we can't grow enough to feed ourselves at the moment and we're in competition with developing countries for scarcer food resources from oversubscribed suppliers.there's always cannibalism, start with the old as in the film soylent green! derek james
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree