Labour attempts to abolish private schools would contravene international human rights law

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

I see that the Labour Party feel sufficiently emboldened to concentrate their attack on private education, in any case by removing charitable status, but now they are looking to make total abolishment their policy.

Are they going to attempt to abolish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 26 (3), or the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Protocol 2 Article 2, never mind the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU Article 14, all of which enshrine the rights of parents to choose the kind of education they want their children to have in accordance with religious and other views?

Are they ignoring the fact that only 7 per cent of pupils are educated in private schools? Do they care that approximately 20 per cent of new students are from overseas, bringing millions into the economy of the UK?

There are many reasons why parents have their children educated privately that is nothing to do with wealth. Besides, there are many hardworking parents who sacrifice throughout their children’s lives to give them the best education they can; why not?

I say to Labour – leave the private education system alone and concentrate on raising the standard of state education for the other 93 per cent of pupils. Or is blind idealism more important than practicality?

Michael C Fowler
Breaston

I am seriously disturbed to hear that Labour members have voted to pursue a policy of abolishing private schools at their party conference.

Pursuing this course would be a serious breach of human rights as the UDHR Article 26 (3) states that “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”.

Britain is recognised globally as the best place for a good private education and many respected individuals from overseas have come here to be educated benefiting the UK economy.

Parents of children in faith schools where the teaching principles are aligned to their beliefs would be forced to revert to teaching their children at home.

This is a grave reminder that a socialist government will attempt to exert control over every aspect of people`s lives. Where this could end is seen by studying the history of the last century. Ultimately it would lead to control over people`s right to choose anything for themselves.

The public should be under no illusions as to the detrimental effect this move would have on our schooling system and in turn the economy.

Tim Pocock
Address supplied

This is disturbing news to me, being the father of seven children, and grandfather to seventeen grandchildren.

For our children to be fully prepared for tomorrow’s world, a sound education is both vital and critical, therefore what would Labour’s motive be in this proposal?

Is it really to better the chances of the students, or is just a political revenge against those who have benefited from such education, and who now occupy prominent positions in government?

How do Labour balance the need of millions to fund this scheme, and the billions saved for the country by independent schools?

What consideration have Labour given to parental rights over the education of their children, as set out in the UDHR, ECHR, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU?

Is not this proposal steering the country towards communism and socialism, giving the state the rights over our children and their education? Do we wish to bring the country to the level of debasing oppressive regimes as seen in these kind of countries?

This an extremely sensitive issue, where the wishes of parents for their children to be not only well taught, but for both their faith and consciences to be respected, must be taken into consideration.

Roger Napthine
Benington

Thomas Cook going bust is down to Brexit

Why is nobody in traditional media pointing out that a huge UK travel company based in the UK has gone bust because the UK has voted to leave the EU? It is so obvious. If a country decides as a majority that it hates “abroad”, wants to chuck out immigrants, refuses to allow those seeking asylum to enter the country and is happy for them to die at sea or be miserable in Calais, of course Thomas Cook will go bust. The Emperor is naked, people. Wake up.

Jonathan King
London W1H

Marr’s ‘attack dog’ style is tiresome

I read Tom Peck’s column with interest but somewhat disagree over his interpretation of the Andrew Marr interview on Sunday. I actually felt that Corbyn tried to answer Marr’s incessant questions about the latest Labour squabble with a certain amount of equanimity. Peck criticises his tone but it was just I feel to counter Marr’s obvious growing irritation.

I am sorry but I often end up shouting at the television “Andrew, let him or her speak” and actually answer one question. This “attack dog” modus operandi is actually very off-putting for the viewer and Marr has been perfecting this of late with complex quick-fire questions which in the end bring the focus onto him and not the interviewee. I felt he again employed this with Dominic Raab, trying to put him on the spot about Thomas Cook.

Raab answered reasonably about the the ongoing position and stated that measures were in hand to deal with this serious situation. I have in the past contrasted Marr’s modus operandi with Sky’s Sophie Ridge who can be just as penetrating without the aggression, because it is so tiring and counterproductive for the silent partner in the discussion.

Judith A Daniels
Great Yarmouth

Why not focus on social care?

The front page of your Daily Edition today is headlined Corbyn ‘terrified’ of becoming prime minister. We then discover this is just the opinion of an anonymous “senior” Labour figure. Well there’s all the usual suspects such as Tom Watson and Wes Streeting of course, but whichever nasty piece of work provides this “story”, the point is that this is merely another knife in the back to Mr Corbyn, and it should be beneath The Independent’s dignity and fair-mindedness to give it any attention, never mind make it a front page story.

A little further in we read that, if elected, Labour will completely overhaul the social care system so that vulnerably elderly people are no longer fleeced of their life savings and even their homes. I am right in the middle of such a nightmare as my husband has a severe degenerative condition which requires him to be in permanent nursing care. The anxiety of trying to make ends meet, now that most of his savings have gone to care home fees, is appalling.

I cannot worry him with these matters and so the entire burden falls upon me. Although the state now contribute to his fees, his whole state pension and half his occupational pension are taken mandatorily towards the fees. One person living in a house does not require half what two people require, because maintaining the house takes a large chunk of the income.

I hope you will reflect on why they chose yet another non-story about Jeremy Corbyn for their front page, rather than the incredibly welcome plans that Labour have to ease the pain and worry currently placed upon the sick and elderly. Aren’t Mr Corbyn’s enemies satisfied yet that they have completely ensured Labour will not get the chance to help people like me, and so many others? I sincerely hope their spiteful campaign fails miserably.

Anonymous
Address supplied