In a debate about whether private schools should retain their charitable status on last week's, Diane Abbott, who's son attended CLSB, said that that school "does not have charitable status" and is "technically a local authority school."

I should think it doesn't need charitable status, being funded in what is probably the wealthiest, most unusual and independent of local administrations, in the wealthiest city and having no doubt many wealthy patrons and sponsors. It seems offensive to me to make it at all comparable to any other local authority school!

Now I am actually not against private/independent schools, but the credibility of someone who can make such a disingenuous statement as that, despite her many achievements I'm sure, is severely diminished in my opinion.

I wonder if any other "local authority" would be able to "run" a private/independent selective school?

But on another note, can "normal" state schools attract private funding from sponsors such as local businesses?
Academies may be forged with committed sponsors, but I am think of a looser, less committed arrangement, which might nevertheless involve significant amounts of money. But then I suppose if this proliferated then those business could feel as though they were effectively paying increased taxes/rates.

Yes, I was listening to Question Time on Radio 4 on Friday and was surprised by her comment. However, I was sure that when we visited the school, the then headteacher was talking about their charitable status and work. I have also known that the Corporation of London and banks funded the school. Anyway, a quick search reveals that they are indeed a charity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_L ... ble_status

Diane Abbott was criticised as she had made comments against private and selective schools, however, when it came to her own child, she sent him to City of London. That's why she said "As everybody knows...".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... /labour.uk

Salsa