School Sports Funding Cuts Will Make It Fairer For Other Countries Confirms Government

As Team GB continues to perform beyond expectation at the Olympics, government ministers have confirmed that cuts to school sports funding are necessary to make it fairer on other nations. Education secretary Michael Gove said his previous decision to cut funding for all 450 school sports partnerships was essential in providing a fairer global sporting environment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/aug/09/olympic-school-sports-government-cuts?newsfeed=true

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/michaelgove


Gove told reporters, “What good does it do to see Team GB winning everything..? We should be looking to compete on a more level playing field with the rest of the world, and we can do that by getting rid of playing fields altogether. Remember, 50% of our Olympic medalists in Beijing came from independent public schools anyway, and this is only going to affect those children fortunate enough to go to a state school.”

“So we’ll still have a slight advantage, even if we have to rely on the independently wealthy to secure it.”

Budding sportsmen and women have claimed the cuts which will prevent them training, practising and learning new sporting disciplines will probably help the country in the long run.

13 year-old Jade Matthews told us, “I saw on the news a man in a suit telling everyone we’re all in this together, so if that means we can’t have an athletics club after school, I guess that’s fair. But I’m delighted we could find the extra £100m needed for each of the 138 new stealth fighters we’re buying. I mean, how many gold medals are they worth?”


.

This is a wind up right? Phew, just saw it was from the guardian, I thought it was real, not some left wing horlicks,

I hate fish wrote:This is a wind up right? Phew, just saw it was from the guardian, I thought it was real, not some left wing horlicks,

Oh, it's real alright, so just remember that when your kids school playing fields are sold off to build another Tesco.

You heard it here first.


.

138 new stealth fighters for £100m. Bargain.

Another comedy gem, Jenny.....

Not

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Another comedy gem, Jenny.....

Not

Look up 'Satire' in your dictionary, Jack. No, allow me to do it for you:

Satire. (Noun): 1. A literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

2. The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

There is no 'Comedy' involved. It isn't meant to be funny, it is meant to be derisive... scornful.... exposing the folly of the act.

I rather think you just don't quite get it, do you..?


.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Another comedy gem, Jenny.....

Not

Look up 'Satire' in your dictionary, Jack. No, allow me to do it for you:

Satire. (Noun): 1. A literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

2. The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

There is no 'Comedy' involved. It isn't meant to be funny, it is meant to be derisive... scornful.... exposing the folly of the act.

I rather think you just don't quite get it, do you..?


.

I think your articles are unfunny and boring, do you..?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Another comedy gem, Jenny.....

Not

Look up 'Satire' in your dictionary, Jack. No, allow me to do it for you:

Satire. (Noun): 1. A literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

2. The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

There is no 'Comedy' involved. It isn't meant to be funny, it is meant to be derisive... scornful.... exposing the folly of the act.

I rather think you just don't quite get it, do you..?

I think your articles are unfunny and boring, do you..?

I think these little satires make a point. That is the intention. If you don't possess the ability to understand what is being said, or recognise the post for what it is, then you're the one with a problem, not me.

If you're looking for a laugh, I suggest you go to the circus. This, however, is a discussion forum and posters have a certain amount of what is known as "Literary Licence", which means alternative forms of posting are quite legitimate. I feel my posts fall within the boundaries of this "Literary Licence".

Having said that, I thank you for your feedback and you can rest assured it has been filed in an appropriate receptacle.

.

The only point they make is to prove you are arrogant with a huge chip on your shoulder with a range of issues.

If that is your intention then you really are doing a great job.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The only point they make is to prove you are arrogant with a huge chip on your shoulder with a range of issues.

If that is your intention then you really are doing a great job.

Post reported for personal abuse.

If you have something to say about the issue, then please make it and we'll discuss it. If you don't like my style of writing then I suggest you simply don't read it.

Personal abuse isn't big, isn't clever and contributes nothing to the discussion.

.

Jennifer, it looks (in my opinion) as if you are being far too sensitive, that isn't remotely personal abuse.

If you are going to put robust and contentious arguments forward, expect robust responses. This isn't a WI coffee morning.

I can't imagine the Mods will say anything different.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The only point they make is to prove you are arrogant with a huge chip on your shoulder with a range of issues.

If that is your intention then you really are doing a great job.

Post reported for personal abuse.

If you have something to say about the issue, then please make it and we'll discuss it. If you don't like my style of writing then I suggest you simply don't read it.

Personal abuse isn't big, isn't clever and contributes nothing to the discussion.

.

Then what do you call your sexist views on the male population.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The only point they make is to prove you are arrogant with a huge chip on your shoulder with a range of issues.

If that is your intention then you really are doing a great job.

Post reported for personal abuse.

If you have something to say about the issue, then please make it and we'll discuss it. If you don't like my style of writing then I suggest you simply don't read it.

Personal abuse isn't big, isn't clever and contributes nothing to the discussion.

.

Then what do you call your sexist views on the male population.

What is wrong with you anglo saxon men? You coma accross like some limp wristed woofta.

Sexist against men. Boo freaking hoo. Grow a pair and learn to use it. If you feel victimised because you're a man, I question your masculinity.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The only point they make is to prove you are arrogant with a huge chip on your shoulder with a range of issues.

If that is your intention then you really are doing a great job.

Post reported for personal abuse.

If you have something to say about the issue, then please make it and we'll discuss it. If you don't like my style of writing then I suggest you simply don't read it.

Personal abuse isn't big, isn't clever and contributes nothing to the discussion.

.

Then what do you call your sexist views on the male population.

What is wrong with you anglo saxon men? You coma accross like some limp wristed woofta.

Sexist against men. Boo freaking hoo. Grow a pair and learn to use it. If you feel victimised because you're a man, I question your masculinity.

Instead of jumping in head first like an excitable moron, why not find out some background info. My comment is pointing out the irony of the situation. I couldn't care less if I am called sexist or a number of other things for that matter.

Fool.

You could have simply commented on the substance of the thread, which is that in the middle of an incredibly successful Olympic Games, held in this country, and whose mission statement is "Inspire A Generation", the government is planning to cut funding for sport in state schools which could, in effect, leave only the independent sector providing sport as a part of the curriculum to any meaningful level.

That's the issue here. You wouldn't just happen to have anything to say about that by any chance, would you..?


.