Submitted 3 weeks ago by dwazou@lemm.ee to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
But, if interested, you can access an archived version here.
“The gardener used to come twice a month, but then he increased his costs from £230 a year to £245 a year. We only have him come once every other month now.”
I find it hard to believe a household with a combined salary (No bonus included) of £345k can’t scrape together an extra 15 quid.
Get the feeling this was deleted because they realised it was utter bollocks, though that’s not much better as they allowed it through.
I know it’s not the point but a gardener isn’t doing shit for £230 a year. That must be a typo, that has to be monthly and if they have a big garden that could be weekly!
I’d happily pay £240 a year for my garden, I have probably spent more than that on plants since I bought the house 2 years ago.
Lifestyle sacrifices are news for the rich. Luckily there aren’t enough to support this kind of journalism.
A household with £345k income is not rich, lol.
They’d have to delete the whole paper then.
I smell a rat.
The image for this article, and the same family in slightly different poses, can be found across multiple websites.
The image held within the archived Telegraph article seems to be a generic library image yet there appears to be no reference of this. The footnote of the image implies this is the “hard up” family.
Maybe they had to sell their photos to an agency so they could afford that 5th holiday. Times are hard.
Not that odd, if anything I thought it was strange that someone would give their name and their family’s image to a paper, particularly on a subject as contentious as this.
“Al Moy” may also be a pseudonym. I wonder if “Al Moy” even exists.
Also, while the Torygraph have pulled the article on their site, it’s still up on yahoo: …yahoo.com/…/earn-345k-soaring-private-school-090…
Hear me out on this, I don’t think that’s enough to be hated
There SHOULD be people who make a lot of money. That should be achievable. The problem is the billionaires and multi-millionaires who prevent that
I think this article shows that it’s even starting to affect the almost-mega-rich
I draw the line at 5 holidays a year
Nah everyone should get infinity holidays. That just shouldn’t make you rich.
depends on what you mean by holidays I guess. If a holiday is something like hanging out with some friends for a night of hobbies, or a bbq, or like going camping at a campground in your region, then five holidays is perfectly ok to me. If holidays means summering at a chateau in the riviera, then, yeah, that’s a pretty good line.
Its revealing that the ‘middle class’ is a lie, it doesn’t exist. We’re all poor compared to the super wealthy, even at $350k.
Private and public schools should be banned though.
Every kids should go to a school that can focus on kids learning.
Wait, if you ban private and public schools then what’s left?
“Almost overnight, the school fees went up from £55,000 per year to £70,000. The increase was shocking, but not entirely unexpected,” Moy says. “Ultimately, I believe, the education provided and the sacrifices we will have to make are worth it.”
So they readily admit it’s a fair price, but still felt the need to complain to the media?
This is real? Holy crap….
That’s so sad… I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
Wish they had to live with 10% of that money each year.
I actually know a couple of teachers at private schools and they say the people being hit hardest aren’t the rich twats but the families who scrimp and save just enough to try and give their kids the best opportunities.
Honest question, why do people pay 50-70k a year for school? If it was higher education, I presume that’s worth it for the connections you get there, maybe, but this is high school. Isn’t it possible to get into the best unis from a good state school?
So their kids don’t have to be with the poors ?
Probably for the experiences. The sort of things kids do in these schools seem more lavish, I mean, as much as I enjoyed my school trip to a farm I’m not sure if that’s the sort of thing they’d consider. Although David Cameron did shag a pig, so not sure if that’s true for all of those schools.
It’s quite possible to get into the best universities in the UK from state school. More than 67% of undergraduates at Oxford University come from state schools.
Only if your kids have excellent grades or are star athletes or otherwise exceptional. Most of this ends up as networking, where the rich parents meet other rich parents and eventually someone with connections is involved when it’s time for the kids to go to university, and because rich people like it when other rich people succeed because they want “the right kind of people” at the universities they send their kids to (sometimes) they’ll help grease the right palms.
Honestly, this is why I’m always peeved when I hear parents telling their kids that school isn’t a social club. I followed that advice, only to find out that the real world cares more about networking than test scores. Whoops.
You make it sound like it’s rare to get into good universities in the UK from state schools. But most of the students at the UK’s top universities come from state schools.
Getting to a good university is only part of the battle and the real prize is the job afterwards. Having a big network is what helps with the latter.
Take law, even at Oxbridge only about 10% of students on that course at either university get into a training contract to become a solicitor. Its closer to 1% at normal universities.
Getting onto that training contract is knowing how to present yourself to the right contacts and go to the right events.
Many subjects are like this, especially for the top jobs.
Not sure about the UK, but the prep school circuit in the US gives a bump for getting into elite universities, and the connections made there can be just as lucrative as the ones in colleges.
If you are smart and hard working enough you can get into the top units that not a problem.
But it’s pretty much taken as a fact that people that go to private schools will do better than if they went to a state school.
So if you get AAA* in state school, private school isn’t much benefit.
But if you going to come out with anything less or generally a troublemaker private schools might be better for you.
It is very possible, however housing near the better state schools is typically very expensive, so for many families it is considerably cheaper to shell out for private school instead.
Additionally, the high achieving state schools have selective entry, so even if you buy the expensive house within the catchment area, your child isn’t necessarily getting in even if they’re bright and studious.
Holy crap. Some people are hit so hard.
Is that from the Daily Torygraph?
I honestly thought it was The Onion at first glance
The onion is having a hard time at the moment because the real papers come out with shit like this.
Really now they just have to focus on people being held responsible for their actions, that would be obviously satire.
Want to save a lot of money? Send them to a public school.
“state school” in UK terminology. Public school in the UK means private school. Weird I know.
Not all of the UK for bonus confusion
Guessing your not from the UK. It means something different in England and Wales …wikipedia.org/…/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)
The article IS about a public school. State schools in the UK are not open to the general public, you must live in its catchment area to be able to get your kids inside and often match other criteria as well. Private schools are called public in the UK because they don’t have restrictions and are open to all members of public - if you have cash then your kids can study.
Tory graph is not a serious paper - its pure propaganda.
Georgina should stop sucking rich people’s dick, its never honorable.
ok
And people wonder why I think there should be a wage cap.
Archangel1313@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
This sounds like satire.
jlow@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Yeah, this feels like it sbould be on “Not the Onion”, wtf
friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It makes me miss Fark. Does something like that exist on Lemmy?
addie@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Yeah, Fark used to be great. That bear headline is a beast.
And then they got rid of the ‘foobies’ (ie. nudity) links off of the main page in order to appeal to advertisers, then they got rid of lots of extra stuff that upset advertisers, then they started shadow-banning paying subscribers if their posts didn’t fit the narrative. And then all the users got fed up of it all and moved ever to Reddit, where the mods were more transparent and there was more of a sense of community. How ironic.
If your core site content is users posting links and commenting on them, then there’s probably a lesson to be learned about how important it is to treat your users well and have a welcoming, inclusive community. Probably a lesson that Lemmy users have already learned, mind.
MrPoletki@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
hey shoutout to fark.com I used to love that place hung out there from about 1999 onwards,
zarathustra0@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
archive.ph/BRKtd
floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Well fuck me, it’s real. Eat the rich.
NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
I don’t think The Telegraph are capable of that