Grammar schools

[GS]

I'm interested in the TTH view on this.

Justine Greening was asked this morning about whether she would repeal the ban on new grammar schools - she's said it's something to be considered. The creation of new grammar schools has been banned since Tony Blair (who else) brought in laws to ban them in 1998. Existing grammar schools can continue to hold grammar status, or expand if there is demand - but that's it.

What is the view on this? Are grammar schools a good thing, recognising that there will inevitably be differences in a child's ability and streaming accordingly? Or are they relics of the past?

It'll surprise no-one to know that I'm all in favour of them. My local non-grammar is shit, and the grammar school I went to was top, top class. Let's repeal the ban, and make it easier for kids who demonstrate the necessary application / capability to move to a grammar after the age of 11.

[Yevrah]

I think they're probably a good idea, although the name makes little immediate sense and I'm not convinced 11 is the right age.

[igor_balis]

I went to an all-boys grammar school which I'm sure surprises absolutely nobody. It is my excuse for being a weirdo.

[Lewis]

My grandad got into grammar school, but his family couldn't afford the uniform. That's what my nan told him anyway.

[Spammer]

I guess the main issue for me is how well you can really tell a child's potential at age 11, and whether or not it's fair to give kids of such an age such a high stakes test.

[mo]

Bring back the cane while we're at it, I say.

[GS]

Bring back the cane while we're at it, I say.

You're a teacher, if I recall correctly. Why do you think selection doesn't work?

It evidently works very well over here, because you'd struggle to find anybody who would advocate getting rid of them. The Shinners did away with the formal transfer test, but the schools just implemented their own one instead - it means kids are sitting several exams, rather than the national transfer test.

[Lewis]

Test them at eleven, fourteen, and sixteen with some sort of promotion and relegation system.

[five time]

At least in my school the middle/bottom setted children were the ones catered to most, presumably to get them into the A*-C bracket or whatever the target is. The top % were just left doing nothing for lessons at a time because they were 'fine' so I'm for it.

[Reg]

It seems a strange concept to me, to separate kids who are apparently more this or that. Kids who are less advanced academically can learn from and be influenced the kids who would be picked for grammar schools, but if you separate them there's not that opportunity. And I think it's good for the would-be grammar school kids to be around all types of people, not just those that happen to be like them at 11 years old.

[mo]

You're a teacher, if I recall correctly. Why do you think selection doesn't work?

It evidently works very well over here, because you'd struggle to find anybody who would advocate getting rid of them. The Shinners did away with the formal transfer test, but the schools just implemented their own one instead - it means kids are sitting several exams, rather than the national transfer test.

Whilst it's not quite the archaic tripartite system that used to exist, I do think that re-introducing grammar schools could have a detrimental effect on comprehensive schools, so while it would be different in name, would essentially bring us back to the idea of 'grammar for the able, comp for the less/un-able'. It would create a division (bigger division?) in society, which I don't think is particularly helpful.

Not sure how the re-introduction of grammar schools would fit into the Tory vision of academised education for all anyway.

[Disco]

I went to all boys private schools and I would recommend the latent homosexuality excellent standard of education and access to opportunities to anyone.

Grammar school are ok in principle but I think actually making sure the standard of teaching is high enough everywhere is more important. For instance there's little point in having 'grammar' schools if the ignorant and the poor are left to rot in educational gulags.

[Boydy]

How to feel like an outsider for the rest of your life - be working class and go to grammar school.

Terrible things.

[Magic]

I went to an all-boys grammar school which I'm sure surprises absolutely nobody. It is my excuse for being a weirdo.

I had you down as a home schooled recluse who didn't have access to public health services.

[Giggles]

:yawn:

[Lewis]

How to feel like an outsider for the rest of your life - be working class and go to grammar school.

Terrible things.

You tart.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I've changed my mind on this over the years and now think that comps are good in principle, but bad in practice, because they are run by and for communist wankers. Sort that element out and we'll be getting somewhere.

[Bartholomert]

You need to have Grammar schools, otherwise only the rich will be able to afford to send their children to top private schools further (unjustly) widening the socioeconomic divide.

That felt dirty and liberal to type out but it's the truth.

[Yevrah]

I like this new considered mert.

[Spammer]

There is definitely something to be said for catering for the working class kids who are intelligent enough to cope with it. I know quite a few people from the local estate who were pretty intelligent and in the right environment could have done very well for themselves.

Like Boydy alluded to though, there's a lot of instances of those kids not having a great time of things in grammar schools. The bit about 'for the rest of their life' is a bit daft and it's hard to know how common it really is, but it's definitely going to be an issue. When tripartite system was established 'parity of esteem' was a big aim but it's just bloody naive to think that people would ever actually see it like that, and I'm wary of the kind of snobby cunt that grammar schools are likely to churn out as kids get cut off from people from different backgrounds.

[Boydy]

What I meant was that you'll probably become educated enough that you don't really fit in amongst the people of your own background but you'll not have had the middle class upbringing and the self-confidence that brings with it to feel like you properly fit in amongst the middle classes where you'll probably end up. You'll probably feel like a bit of an impostor everywhere in life.

[Bartholomert]

What I meant was that you'll probably become educated enough that you don't really fit in amongst the people of your own background but you'll not have had the middle class upbringing and the self-confidence that brings with it to feel like you properly fit in amongst the middle classes where you'll probably end up. You'll probably feel like a bit of an impostor everywhere in life.

Yeah but at least their children will have completed the socioeconomic upward mobility arc. And let's be real, if an individual had the choice between being a 'middle-class impostor' versus being 'authentically lower-class', I'm pretty sure I know which category most lower-class people would choose.

[Spammer]

What I meant was that you'll probably become educated enough that you don't really fit in amongst the people of your own background but you'll not have had the middle class upbringing and the self-confidence that brings with it to feel like you properly fit in amongst the middle classes where you'll probably end up. You'll probably feel like a bit of an impostor everywhere in life.

Unless their parents think they're a cunt for it then I think that's a bit dramatic.

[Yevrah]

What I meant was that you'll probably become educated enough that you don't really fit in amongst the people of your own background but you'll not have had the middle class upbringing and the self-confidence that brings with it to feel like you properly fit in amongst the middle classes where you'll probably end up. You'll probably feel like a bit of an impostor everywhere in life.

Sounds like you're speaking for yourself there and haven't you got a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to stuff like this?

[Magic]

:harold:

[Boydy]

Unless their parents think they're a cunt for it then I think that's a bit dramatic.

What?

I'm not saying your parents chuck you out or anything. You just probably end up not having very much in common with them.

[Magic]

What I meant was that you'll probably become educated enough that you don't really fit in amongst the people of your own background but you'll not have had the middle class upbringing and the self-confidence that brings with it to feel like you properly fit in amongst the middle classes where you'll probably end up. You'll probably feel like a bit of an impostor everywhere in life.

Translation: I had a good education but have low self confidence and work in a chain bookstore.

[Bartholomert]

Sounds like you're speaking for yourself there and haven't you got a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to stuff like this?

Ruthless.

[John]

I can see how what Boydy's describing could develop, you feel intellectually above your old mates and they don't get your jokes because your frames of reference are so different while your new mates leave you behind because they're all from money and you can't do the things they do. Boydy has described the same outsider feeling from being at Oxford though and I'm certain I remember different terms describing the same thing at an old job, so in this instance it's probably just Boyd being a bit weird.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I earn less than almost all my friends, so I can't do things they do, like buy flats and go on nice holidays. I don't give a flying fuck though.

Boydy's describing a class thing, the logical conclusion to which is 'keep the poor in their proper place'.

[GS]

What I meant was that you'll probably become educated enough that you don't really fit in amongst the people of your own background but you'll not have had the middle class upbringing and the self-confidence that brings with it to feel like you properly fit in amongst the middle classes where you'll probably end up. You'll probably feel like a bit of an impostor everywhere in life.

This is a bit wet, really.

I'm from a loyalist housing estate, went to a top grammar school and am now a chartered accountant. I can't say I recognise, in any way, the situation you're describing.

I suspect you're lifting your experience from Oxford and imposing it onto other things which you associate with 'elitism'. I suspect I'd have spent most of my time at an Oxbridge harbouring a deep resentment at the toff element too, mind you, and that would be quite understandable given they'd no doubt consider me to be some sort of vile savage.

The key behind grammar schools is giving the best education to the most people. Comprehensives shouldn't be written off, obviously, but there are clearly different abilities and I would suggest that disruptive / disinterested pupils are far more likely to drag a class down than interested / intelligent pupils are to drag classes up.

[Magic]

Do we even have this shit in Scotland? All I know it's Catholic schools, Prod schools and posh cunt schools that you pay for.

[GS]

I don't know, but I suspect the SNP would ban them if they existed. They hate aspiration.

[Lewis]

What?

I'm not saying your parents chuck you out or anything. You just probably end up not having very much in common with them.

*slams bedroom door*

[ItalAussie]

I can certainly see the sense in grammar schools. Students benefit from learning tailored to their ability. My parents moved me when I was quite young to a school with a well-resourced program for extending talented students, and I think it's quite probable that it helped me to develop my academic ability in ways that I wouldn't have been able to elsewhere.

At the same time, there is certainly more to school than just learning to be good at the three R's, and it's important to ensure that students develop socially at the same time. It's not hard to envision that grammar schools could isolate gifted students from their peers, and that probably should be mitigated somehow. The ideal balance might be ability-streaming within schools? Either way, grammar schools seem perfectly reasonable, and I don't really have a problem with them. I mean, people with resources will always game the entry system, but as long as there's space for smart kids from disadvantaged backgrounds as well, then more power to it.

[Bartholomert]

I can certainly see the sense in grammar schools. Students benefit from learning tailored to their ability. My parents moved me when I was quite young to a school with a well-resourced program for extending talented students, and I think it's quite probable that it helped me to develop my academic ability in ways that I wouldn't have been able to elsewhere.

At the same time, there is certainly more to school than just learning to be good at the three R's, and it's important to ensure that students develop socially at the same time. It's not hard to envision that grammar schools could isolate gifted students from their peers, and that probably should be mitigated somehow. The ideal balance might be ability-streaming within schools? Either way, grammar schools seem perfectly reasonable, and I don't really have a problem with them. I mean, people with resources will always game the entry system, but as long as there's space for smart kids from disadvantaged backgrounds as well, then more power to it.

In America they have 'magnet programs'; these are accelerated programs (like grammar schools) that have their own separate curriculum but still take electives with the rest of the school, and as was in my case, are at times deliberately bused to lower performing schools to facilitate exactly that sort of mutually positive social exchange.

USA 1 - 0 Other Countries

[Lewis]

The benefits of which are still apparent in your posting.

[ItalAussie]

In America they have 'magnet programs'; these are accelerated programs (like grammar schools) that have their own separate curriculum but still take electives with the rest of the school, and as was in my case, are at times deliberately bused to lower performing schools to facilitate exactly that sort of mutually positive social exchange.

USA 1 - 0 Other CountriesLike the sort of thing I was talking about, and was involved with at school. I feel like other countries get points in your scoring system here. :nodd:

I have a bunch of friends who I studied with in the UK who went to US magnet programs, and they all speak very highly of them. But it's a very geographically-dependent thing as well, as I understand it. Most of my friends who went to schools like that were in the north-east or the west coast.

[John]

Mert reckoned people were 'misunderestimating' things the other day, so I'm taking a point away from the US for that. Other Countries win.

[Davgooner]

went to a top grammar school and am now a chartered accountant.


Stick that in your profile. :nodd:

[Magic]

Quince is a chartered surveyor so it means absolutely fuck all.

[Byron]

Likewise, Leeds Revolution is a Financial 'Adviser'

I went to a grammar school and ended up am Insurance Broker.

[Spoonsky]

In America they have 'magnet programs'; these are accelerated programs (like grammar schools) that have their own separate curriculum but still take electives with the rest of the school, and as was in my case, are at times deliberately bused to lower performing schools to facilitate exactly that sort of mutually positive social exchange.

USA 1 - 0 Other Countries

That's me too. It wasn't exactly the utopian experience it could have been, as a sort of school-within-a-school dynamic existed (though that was largely racial as well, 47% of the school is Hispanic but very few do the IB program, not sure there'd be the same problem in Britain), but it was very good and I think I'm a much more open-minded person for having had classes with people of different classes and races all the way through, while still feeling very pushed academically. I think it will only get better as they try to diversify the program.

[Bartholomert]

That's me too. It wasn't exactly the utopian experience it could have been, as a sort of school-within-a-school dynamic existed (though that was largely racial as well, 47% of the school is Hispanic but very few do the IB program, not sure there'd be the same problem in Britain), but it was very good and I think I'm a much more open-minded person for having had classes with people of different classes and races all the way through, while still feeling very pushed academically. I think it will only get better as they try to diversify the program.

As a counter narrative most people I know said it made them really racist.

[ItalAussie]

Does the bus thing work? It sounds like there would be some pretty big divisions there that it wouldn't cross over.

[Bartholomert]

Does the bus thing work? It sounds like there would be some pretty big divisions there that it wouldn't cross over.

Define work; for some it does. I always played basketball and soccer so I had respect from the Blacks and the Latinos and was even pretty popular on 'both sides'; in fact I attribute my preference for slightly disproportionately large butts to my positive experiences / validation I received during my middle school years. Plenty of kids were like that. On the other hand my Asian / White / Jew nerdy friends fucking hated it, were regularly harassed, and are some of the most genuinely racist people you will meet. They are definitely less pussy because of it though.

Bonus - I'm still on their brochure apparently, I've blanked out the sensitive information:

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t34.0-12/13695178_10154276079236678_894900001_n.png?oh=b643 e5ee34f8defe9719d21fd32e1868&oe=578F182F

[Pepe]

I attribute my preference for slightly disproportionately large butts to my positive experiences / validation I received during my middle school years.

I lolled.

[igor_balis]

I went to a grammar school and a decent uni, and I've been in loads of dead-end shit temp jobs and that's the same of most of my other grammar school 2.1 red brick mates. That's probably more to do with me naturally making friends with similarly lazy, feckless and unambitious people.

I think if we were all working class kids done good we might have had more motivation to be STRIVERS, but we're all from backgrounds comparable to Ned Flanders's.

[Spammer]

New page :cool:

[Lewis]

There were twelve threads this week that haven't made it onto a second page. Why should they be left behind?

[GS]

Some Tories are going to try and boot this into gear now May's in Number 10:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/100-tory-mps-back-scrapping-the-ban-on-new-grammar-schools/

[GS]

It's happening, seemingly. Excellent news.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/06/theresa-may-to-end-ban-on-new-grammar-schools/

[GS]

762049819800109056

This seems to have poked the liberal bear, and they are unfortunately adhering to the standard Labour doctrine that they'd sooner something was worse for everybody because 'equality, mate'.

[Lewis]

Seeing as you can't have a Labour government without a functioning Labour Party, maybe the idea is to troll them all into crawling back to Jezza. :drool:

[niko_cee]

Whilst I generally think selection in education can be a good thing, there is something to be said for the fact that it (the selection process) isn't particularly fit for purpose in the modern world. I don't know how it would work in the UK, but we still have the 11+ over here, with a state funded grammar school and scholarships to the private colleges available, and over the course of time the original idea behind it has been eroded. Whereas in the past it was to give the brightest kids from all (but mostly poorer) backgrounds the chance to go to the 'good schools' (this is debatable) it is now simply a method for middle-class subversion of the sate-funded system. Apparently there hasn't been a scholar to the school I went to from a social housing background for 7 years. It's all just people who could afford to pay gaming the system with tutors (seriously, what the fuck is a tutor for a 10 year old?). You could means test it, but, with civil servants in charge, that would probably end up doubling the entire education budget.

[igor_balis]

I know a couple of people who went to the same grammar school as me who had really pushy parents who made them have 11+ tutors. Pretty short-sighted because the kids in question simply weren't smart enough to keep up with the other kids once they got there, and I'm almost certain they would have gotten better GCSE and A-Level results and generally had a less shit time if they'd just gone to a comp.

[Bartholomert]

Pretty sure most poor people don't make it to Grammar Schools because their parents are also stupid and IQ is largely hereditary rather than rigging the system through tutoring, pretty sure there were a few studies showing that tutoring has largely negligible effects on SAT scores for example.

[GS]

There is definitely some gaming of the system, but that's not a reason to ban them.

[GS]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/07/plan-to-scrap-new-grammar-schools-ban-could-be-blocked-by-lords/


while a Lib Dem source said: “We will kill it in the Lords.”

That's the Liberal Democrats. With eight MPs. You'd laugh if you didn't SEETHE.

[Boydy]

You're not complaining about the House of Lords being undemocratic, are you?

[GS]

I don't mind it being unelected when their activity is restricted to amending, advising, questioning. They don't hold legislative initiative, and protocol dictates (or did, until they decided to abandon it on budget cuts because they didn't have the numbers in the Commons) they don't interfere on budgetary matters. There's an argument - a strong one, in my view - that because they don't have to seek reelection, they don't have to be populist and can simply point out the perceived defects in the detail of a bill. That's their role - they shouldn't be driving policy, and they certainly shouldn't be 'killing' legislation on the grounds they're ideologically opposed to it.

So I have a very big problem when the revising chamber seeks to block legislation from the elected chamber, as you see here or in the benefits cuts that were blocked last year. Particularly when that blockage is significantly contributed to by a party who were rejected at the last election and hold only eight members of parliament. They're using their appointees in the upper chamber to circumvent their rejection by the electorate in the lower chamber.

If they can't adhere to the principle of acting as a revising chamber only, then the time has come to sack a few hundred of them. Or just follow Earl Grey and pack the upper chamber with Tories to redress the imbalance that exists. It might come to that, to cow them into doing their fucking job properly.

This Lady Wheatcroft one threatening to jam Brexit in the Lords would be another appalling example of Lords overreach.

[ItalAussie]

Pretty sure most poor people don't make it to Grammar Schools because their parents are also stupid and IQ is largely hereditary rather than rigging the system through tutoring, pretty sure there were a few studies showing that tutoring has largely negligible effects on SAT scores for example.

"The deserving poor". A necessary plank in justifying why "good" economic policies mysteriously leave poor people in the hole. They must have had it coming.

Everyone knows you can teach entrance tests - it's why top colleges all conduct their own interviews - but there's no obviously better way to rank that many people effectively. It's the same reason that IQ tests are accepted to be broken - at some point you start teaching to the tests, and pattern recognition becomes the most important skill for scoring highly.

[Bartholomert]

"The deserving poor". A necessary plank in justifying why "good" economic policies mysteriously leave poor people in the hole. They must have had it coming.

Everyone knows you can teach entrance tests - it's why top colleges all conduct their own interviews - but there's no obviously better way to rank that many people effectively. It's the same reason that IQ tests are accepted to be broken - at some point you start teaching to the tests, and pattern recognition becomes the most important skill for scoring highly.

Do you really want to have this discussion? Because you're emphatically wrong, but I'm pretty certain you'll ban me for politically incorrect study conclusions if I proceed.

IQ and socioeconomic status are very closely interrelated. IQ is strongly hereditary. This is why immigrants still experience social mobility in America while native born Americans do not.

[ItalAussie]

You buy into genetic racism? God, you really are just Harold with a thesaurus.

If you're mistaking IQ test results for intelligence, then you're not really looking to have an informed discussion, anyway.

[ItalAussie]

At any rate, there is clearly some genetic elements to intelligence capacity (let's steer away from IQ, which is deeply limited as a measure). But environment is also a hugely important factor. The real truth is that intelligence is such a difficult concept to pin down or measure, let alone accurately subscribe origins towards. We fall back on limited quantities that are simple to measure, like IQ, but we also know that it gives us a very limited picture.

Deeply intelligent people spring out of every corner of society - this is why the interviews are taken so seriously. The trick is to work out their capacity for deep thinking and complex problem solving, which are largely ignored by IQ measures. You'd never rely on an IQ-type test for any kind of advanced program. You'd only ever use it to supplement an opportunity to test for more complex skills.

[Lewis]

Mate, the 'deserving poor' means that they deserve help because they are victims of circumstance. Not that they deserve to be poor. You've been getting this wrong since about 2008.

[ItalAussie]

Mate, the 'deserving poor' means that they deserve help because they are victims of circumstance. Not that they deserve to be poor. You've been getting this wrong since about 2008.
That is true, and I remember you picking me up on that before. My apologies.

[Lewis]

Couldn't grammar schools just interview kids who test sort-of-well, or who teachers might put forward for it because they have other qualities? If you were going to start rolling them out beyond Northern Ireland and Conservative fortresses then surely any assessment procedures would have to be updated from those based on ye olde academic wisdom.

[Boydy]

Mate, the 'deserving poor' means that they deserve help because they are victims of circumstance. Not that they deserve to be poor. You've been getting this wrong since about 2008.

I was going to post that after reading his post.

[Boydy]

Couldn't grammar schools just interview kids who test sort-of-well, or who teachers might put forward for it because they have other qualities? If you were going to start rolling them out beyond Northern Ireland and Conservative fortresses then surely any assessment procedures would have to be updated from those based on ye olde academic wisdom.
What do you interview an 11 year old on?

Also, they'd be shitting themselves.

[mugbull]

When I took a standardized IQ test (and I was 7), I remember it being almost entirely questions about shapes, which I had to rearrange for some purpose. Another question was a "spot what's off" picture thing, where a man's shadow was pointing in the same direction as the sun. Really

Maybe the IQ test is a good way to analyze a toddler's spatial recognition capabilities, but I can't think of many examinations less suited for predicting someone's potential for success.

[Bartholomert]

When I took a standardized IQ test (and I was 7), I remember it being almost entirely questions about shapes, which I had to rearrange for some purpose. Another question was a "spot what's off" picture thing, where a man's shadow was pointing in the same direction as the sun. Really

Maybe the IQ test is a good way to analyze a toddler's spatial recognition capabilities, but I can't think of many examinations less suited for predicting someone's potential for success.

IQ correlates with success. You are wrong.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/09/16/is-iq-a-predictor-of-success/#1bc78e5b5ddc

[Bartholomert]

You buy into genetic racism? God, you really are just Harold with a thesaurus.

If you're mistaking IQ test results for intelligence, then you're not really looking to have an informed discussion, anyway.

So does much of academia, in case you were unaware.

Environment is a big factor, but there are also undeniable trends.

[mugbull]

Alright buddy boy, you want me to teach you the definition of statistical correlation vs predictive significance?

[Bartholomert]

Alright buddy boy, you want me to teach you the definition of statistical correlation vs predictive significance?

IQ is the best predictor of success that exits, it's tough to independently evaluate IQ because it is often so intertwined with 'environmental advantages' (provided by the high IQ parents who gave birth to the child in question) but for the most part this is a widely accepted Truth.

If you want to trawl through here you go:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/23542/summary

Keep in mind sociology of this sort is the domain of radical Marxists, and any sort of admission of predictive ability is reflective of exhaustive professionally undeniable evidence in its favor.

[Lewis]

What do you interview an 11 year old on?

Also, they'd be shitting themselves.

I don't know. Teachers are always telling us that they know kids' qualities better than any standardised testing procedures, so presumably they (between the primary and the grammar school) could come up with some way of assessing their potential beyond a one-off exam. However it would work, I definitely have some sympathy with the idea that a test doesn't prove all that much, because I've bombed every exam since I was twelve.

[GS]

At the minute, it's a postcode lottery so you have well-to-do people buying up property in good catchment areas, thereby creating the very 'inequality' the system is supposed to prevent.

There is, surely, a system which could be introduced which permits some form of selection. Perhaps you have grammars which only begin from the age of 13, meaning kids have to go to the local comprehensive for the first couple of years. By that point, you've had enough time to see which ones would benefit from the move and they'll have matured a bit to the point they'll understand the system. It then means you can have selection in advance of GCSEs.

The important thing is that it wouldn't be a binary choice between grammars and comprehensives. It's about offering parents, and by extension the children, a range of choices that best fits them. You're never going to get rid of wealthy people having advantage - as evidenced by the postcode lottery for school places - so at least this goes some way to providing a route towards supposedly 'poorer' students being given the same opportunities irrespective of wealth.

I note also that a lot of people who oppose grammars send their children to them or private schools regardless. "Do as I say, not as I do."

[GS]

I reckon May has been reading my posts here.

What scenes. It'll probably get voted down in the Commons, because people are fucking thick but maybe we'll get somewhere.

(As has Matt:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/09/08/0909-MATT-GALLERY-WEB-P1-large_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu 2jJnT8.pnghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/09/09/1009-MATT-GALLERY-WEB-P1-large_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu 2jJnT8.png

Top, top lad.)