So, are you suggesting that a pupil who shows remarkable talent in playing the flute, say, at the age of 14 is necessarily going to develop to the same level of a child who was at that level at, say, 8?

I have been very clear - but, yet again you deliberately ignore half of what I'm saying because you don't want to accept that you haven't raised any real problems with this sort of approach. 

What I'm suggesting is that the stage that a child needs the sort of specialist tuition we are talking about, varies depending upon a number of factors - when they started playing, the age at which their exceptional talent develops or is recognised, whether specialist teaching to some level is available to them without attending a specialist school and, of course, what sort of education the parents and the pupil think is best, and at what stage. As I say, it's not rocket science, and nothing I'm suggesting is unachievable or unworkable.  Importantly, it can be available to all who show talent, to rich people, to not so rich people, and to poor people.  Neither you nor Andrew has actually raised any real obstacle to this and you in particular, Andy, are beginning to look silly by pretending that I haven't said half of what I have said.

I agree that, with the current state of the country and world, that we are so far away from this that it can seem like something that can't be achieved, but that's not because there's any real practical problem with it working, it's because the rich don't give up their privilege lightly and there is a massive propaganda machine telling people that change for the better is impossible.  We should not abandon the dream of a better world just because it seems a long haul to get there.