As I’m sure you know with your enormous expertise about forums, the usual sign of “socks” occurs when someone is losing an argument or has a point of view they strongly wish to push which is not considered valuable by other posters, or wants to provide multiple complainants against another poster.

Then posters appear out of nowhere, never having posted before, posting in support of that poster’s views, usually having recently signed up (some boards show you this information). The posters then often never post again on any other subject.

I’ve seen this a couple of times on other forums (there was one funny one on the TES board !) but obviously that wouldn’t happen here.

It’s usually obvious (the poster has nothing else to say so just parrots the views the original poster has) and sometimes quite funny. Socks usually aren’t smart enough to write in a different style.

I’m sure “L Turvey” whoever he or she is (I looked but Turvey is quite an unusual name) as she finds the discussions so interesting and is so concerned about bullying and debate will find the time to regularly post on other topics in his or her own unique style.

Those of us with grey hairs (or in my case, hair) will remember Rik Mayall’s first TV performance (I think) as a “comic leftie” – a precursor of Rik in the “Young Ones” called “Kevin Turvey” giving incoherent monologues repeating all kinds of wierd ideas. I’m sure “L” will do better

What’s your first name L by the way ? Can’t call you “L” can we

Maybe I’m reading the wrong threads

If the school cannot continue to operate due to lack of funds then perhaps it could be closed and reopened as a Free School.

However, no, the pupils education should not be continued. What the process does otherwise is divert public money to private education.

I have no problem with independent education and have used it for my own children but it should not receive government funding directly or indirectly (though it is often quoted, the actual tax benefits of charitable status are exaggerated)

Sometimes the citing of previous threads, which is something I often do, is to avoid repeating points previously made and to expand on points made within a post without making the post too long. Unfortunately, again, some posters refer back to posts under a thread or even to posts made on other forums. If the latter is spotted, it is usually removed.

You are right to say the issues discussed here are extremely important and the points of view expressed are a useful antidote to the rhetoric and misinformation coming from the Deparment for Education. Please keep coming back to add your voice.

However I am suprised and dismayed at how intelligent and informed people resort to undermining eachother, citing previous posts and turn valuable debate into personal attacks. This needs to be moderated and anyone posting a personal comment should have that comment removed.

This is imperative if we aim to foster open, live debate and protect the space from bullying approches to making a point.

Rather than fixate on the terminology so as to rename comprehensives in Kent as secondary moderns why not just focus on whether those schools are good and whether they can be improved? By all means retain your belief that they would be improved further by having a greater proportion of the highest attaining 11 year olds (and that the outcomes for all including those currently at the grammars would be improved by selection going completely) but why the interest in a pejorative use of secondary modern as a term for such schools? Or, the corollary of co-opting a type of school which goes against the grain of this site by being an Academy and calling it Mossbourne Comprehensive? Will you be calling WLFS West London Comprehensive too?

There’s something sinister in this Lewis Carroll use of words to mean what you want them to mean rather than looking at the substance.