News

Shami Chakrabarti accused of hypocrisy for sending son to £18,000-a-year private school

By on
53

Woman tipped to become next shadow attorney general appears to fly in face of Labour’s stance on selective education

lead12

It has been revealed the 13-year-old son of top barrister Shami Chakrabarti attends an £18,000-a-year academically selective school.

The news comes the same weekend the Labour party — of which Chakrabarti is a peer — held a national action day to campaign for “inclusive education”, leading spectators to brandish the barrister and former Liberty director a hypocrite.

LSE graduate Chakrabarti, 47, is hotly tipped to become the new attorney general in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, and this week the Labour party stepped in to defend the top barrister against accusations of hypocrisy.

According to the Daily Mail, a “party source” has claimed the decision to send Chakrabarti’s son to Dulwich College — where Nigel Farage once studied — was made by his father, an Oxford-educated Linklaters partner from who Chakrabarti is now divorced. The source continued:

The decision about where children go to school nowadays is not taken by one parent. Each parent has their own views on where their child goes to school, as do children themselves.

Do you think Chakrabarti is a hypocrite for allowing her son to go to private school?

53 Comments

Shami fan

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(3)(5)

Anonymous

Funny that you’ve quoted a tweet in your article that would have been censored had it have been a comment

(6)(0)

Anonymous

And why was that offensive?

It’s a play on words!!!

(0)(0)

Lyle

£18,000 is fairly piss poor for an education in England. £30,000 is about normal.

I don’t get involved in politics.

I don’t understand it. Is it labour policy not to have your kids educated, like Boko Haram or something?

(9)(39)

Anonymous

18.000 is just below the average annual wage outside London, so I would not say it is ‘piss poor’.

(24)(1)

Anonymous

This is the fee for day boys, if they are boarding the fees are c£37k+

(12)(0)

Interloper

*Whoosh*…
😐

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Shabby Chakrabarti – Shabby shabby Chakrabarti

(1)(1)

Anonymous

The problem here is that the state education system is pretty poor at supporting bright kids, especially in primary schools (which tend to be much smaller). Plus you’ve got a section of the cohort who think, and their parents aren’t dissuading them, that it is cool to be stupid.

While I think it is wrong for people to get a leg-up on others because they have money, and sifting kids at any age into successes and failures, is intrinsically wrong – it is difficult to criticise anyone who makes those choices when the state system is so broken (and the teachers in that system are wedded to dogma).

(35)(5)

Anonymous

“and the teachers in that system are wedded to dogma” – I’m afraid this betrays your idiocy. Teachers are, on the whole, slaves to successive government policies changing the rules on them constantly.

(10)(12)

Anonymous

That’s part of the dogma. The other part is that you can’t tell them that your child is beyond what they are trying to teach them – I got “told off” for showing my son how to do stacked multiplication (because he was so far ahead of the rest of his class) ‘we’re working on number lines this term, it’s the Singapore system’. FFS!

Then he gets basically ignored in literacy classes because at age six he had a (verified and tested) reading age of eleven.

Don’t tell me I’m an idiot, I’ve had to deal with the “profession” of idiots.

I never really bought into that old adage until my children went to school, now I know it’s true: ‘Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach’

(20)(8)

Anonymous

I’d also like to tell you that you are an idiot. I suspect you will get very irate about it, but then that’s half the fun! You sound like one of those parents we all roll our eyeballs about – “my son is brighter than all the others” etc. Wonderful competitive parenting.

(6)(9)

Anonymous

someone has to ensure talented children don’t become under achievers simply because they’re sat in a classroom lacking similar talent, why are supportive parents vindicated whilst those negligent are helpless victims of ‘the system’?

Anonymous

I think you might need to look up the meaning of the word vindicated.

Anonymous

Actually, I think the correct phrase is ‘they’re seated’ rather than ‘they’re sat.’

Anonymous

Can I tell you something, for most kids (few exceptions), they aren’t born bright, you make them bright. If you can’t be bothered to put the work in then that’s your problem.

Is my son not entitled to be educated at his level (and that goes for the other bright kids in his class too), rather than what some dogma says he is supposed to be achieving?

Matt Pavey

I agree entirely with what you said BUT you seem to have missed the point completely.
She may well be doing what she (and probably most reading) thinks is best for her son, but is a Labour peer, and therefore publicly stands against selective education!
The article may be a little harsh as I’m sure no member of any political party aligns 100% with every policy.
Why she tries to pass the blame onto her ex-husband, instead of simply saying this is one area that she disagrees with her party, is simple cowardice.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

She let her ex husband decide their son’s future,doesn’t ring true.

(15)(1)

Anonymous

Quite. Everyone needs to think of what usually happens with divorced couples. In the vast majority of cases, it is the mother who makes the main decisions and separated father is relegated to a supporting role.

(7)(1)

Tyrion

Forget divorced couples, in marriage the wife makes the major decisions regarding the children. It may be presented as a joint decision, but it rarely is. Not complaining mind you, but that’s the way it normally is. Even if the mother is a grade A dunce trophy wife the kid will end up at her choice ‘expensive but lax private school’ unless the mother-in-law is able to make a power play.

(3)(2)

Anonymous

Agree, and it’s another reason why men really need to do serious due diligence on who they marry.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Why is Legal Cheek citing an overtly Islamophobic twitter account? It takes a few seconds to scroll through appleofeden_3 tweets to see references to ‘Muslim rats’ and the account cited in the tweet quoted (even more openly racist) is an indication.

A new low for LC.

(31)(6)

Anonymous

All part of KK’s policy of trawling twitter for a story without doing any real work.

(5)(0)

OA

Good choice of school though.

(7)(1)

Anonymous

Apart from the Farage connection.

(5)(3)

Anonymous

It’s her cash so she can do whatever the hell she wants to with it.

Not everybody can afford it so the government needs to improve comps and grammars.

(6)(4)

Comp + Oxbridge Educated Bar Student

Interesting to realise in hindsight that the conversation I had with her at an event last year re access to the Bar was utter bollocks.

(12)(3)

Not Amused

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a person’s reputation plummet quite as quickly as Ms Chakrabarti’s has done.

It’s astonishing.

(13)(3)

Anonymous

It’s hardly a revelation that her son is privately educated, I seem to remember some similar nonsense some time ago, when she’d tried to get him into Eton.

http://heatst.com/world/shami-chakrabarti-tried-to-send-her-son-to-eton/

(3)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Worried about being sued for defamation LC?

(0)(0)

Stallonesque

Fair comment, bruh.

It’s a defence that changed my loyfe.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Bad chakra.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

She is a parent first and a politician last. When all is send and done in her political career her son/children will still have to live and grow up following the decisions of their parents. No matter how good inclusive/grammar schools are parents want the best for their kids no matter the circumstance. If you’re mad that you didnt go to a good school or your parents didnt do the best for you, dont be mad. Do better

(4)(2)

Daniel Levenstein

The article suggests it was her partner who wanted the best for their child, she isn’t interested.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

C’mon, you know that’s BS.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Its funny seeing so many people putting their life and faith in UK Politics. The same politics and politicians that have put us all in this shit position. Because her party believe one thing she must follow it fully?! Pls…. she had a life before all this politics war and her kids deserve better

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You realise it’s not simply that she’s a member of Labour…

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The Labour party needs to admit that it didn’t ban grammar schools. It’s not prevent grammar schools. All that happened was that grammar schools were privatised and put behind a large pay wall.

That is disgraceful.

(2)(2)

Anonymous

“top barrister”

(1)(0)

Trumpenkrieg

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Shameless Shami

A truly grotesque hypocrite.

(7)(1)

Anonymous

Champagne socialist to the core.

(5)(1)

Daniel Levenstein

Is is common practice for Labour politicians to pass the blame to their partners & former partners for their children’s education? Corbyn blamed his wife and now this one is blaming her husband.

(2)(1)

Vaz Khan

Shakra bashers… Leave the woman alone, the people on here giving her a dig should not be associated with the legal profession if that’s the way they feel towards her. Most of the senior judiciary and endless Oxbridge grads went to a private school. Totally pathetic, maybe it’s because she’s a Muslim eh???!!!

(0)(9)

Anonymous

Thanks – I’m now less intelligent for having read that.

(3)(0)

Trumpenkrieg

or, in other words: “You manz iz reeeeysis”

(3)(0)

Anonymous

These leftist people are always like this.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Vaz Khan,

I think you have pushed the apple too far from the tree with your suggestion that those of us who think Shami Chakrabati is a career politician, or a hypocrite, and nothing more, are really veiling the fact that we are critical of her because she is a Muslim.

I am sure you understand what set of circumstances comprise hypocrisy, and what characteristics a person who is a hypocrite possesses, so why pretend that you don’t just to swing a haymaker punch ?

It is disappointing that you think those of us who hold this reasonable view of her should be deprived of our livelihoods. But, again, I think you are only pretending that you hold this view.

(0)(1)

Comments are closed.