Listen honey this ain't top trumps in the pity stakes. And if it was many here hold a better hand than you. Indeed I might myself .
This is about a child's right to help , education and care.
One I'm not your honey >:( two my son has an autistic son who went to a special 74 miles from where they lived hey my d in l took him every day.
Let's not forget that a lot of disabled people in this country are having their services reduced or stopped, because of cuts in the welfare state. The link below is quite interesting with regards to whether or not there's a system of buying votes involved.
Katie Price should have kept her mouth shut. She doesn't know what she is talking about.
There is no child in Britain disabled or otherwise getting taken to school by the local authority at a cost of a £1,000 a day.
There are no "special drivers" and KP doesn't have a say in who drives her child to school. Some local authorities insist that a driver has no contact with a child and it is up to the escort to ensure the child is securely fastened in a seat.
Drivers are employed by a taxi company or act as a single operator. Every driver has to have a NVQ/BTEC in taxi driving, enhanced CRB and pass the knowledge test. Driver do not need first aid knowledge. The escort is usually employed by the council.
Local authority put out school contract to a tender for all taxi companies to apply and whoever is the lowest bid gets the contract. Parents will get notification of the taxi company who takes their child and the name of the escort. Remember this is a part time job for an hour or 2 in the morning and the same in the afternoon. The average school contract is £500 a week. There aren't many who get a £1,000 a week never mind a day.
Safety is paramount. If a child is too violent the escort or driver can refuse to take a child. Sometime a restraining harness is used to keep a child in their seat for journeys.
I hope people don't get the impression that a £1,000 a day of their hard earned money gets spent on disabled children up and down the country going to and from school. It doesn't not even for KP.
Katie Price should have kept her mouth shut. She doesn't know what she is talking about.
There is no child in Britain disabled or otherwise getting taken to school by the local authority at a cost of a £1,000 a day.
There are no "special drivers" and KP doesn't have a say in who drives her child to school. Some local authorities insist that a driver has no contact with a child and it is up to the escort to ensure the child is securely fastened in a seat.
Drivers are employed by a taxi company or act as a single operator. Every driver has to have a NVQ/BTEC in taxi driving, enhanced CRB and pass the knowledge test. Driver do not need first aid knowledge. The escort is usually employed by the council.
Local authority put out school contract to a tender for all taxi companies to apply and whoever is the lowest bid gets the contract. Parents will get notification of the taxi company who takes their child and the name of the escort. Remember this is a part time job for an hour or 2 in the morning and the same in the afternoon. The average school contract is £500 a week. There aren't many who get a £1,000 a week never mind a day.
Safety is paramount. If a child is too violent the escort or driver can refuse to take a child. Sometime a restraining harness is used to keep a child in their seat for journeys.
I hope people don't get the impression that a £1,000 a day of their hard earned money gets spent on disabled children up and down the country going to and from school. It doesn't not even for KP.
Totally agree. Ignorance is no excuse. People should keep their mouths shut on subjects they are not qualified to speak on.
"Now Katie Price's representatives have posted a statement online which explained that the £1,000 sum she spoke about was not the cost to the local authority but her estimate of fees she would pay if she used a private driver and a private nurse.
The cost of the school placement together with transport is not means-tested as it is provided for the child. Local authorities do not have special needs schools locally as these have been closed during the last 15 years as it was deemed a cheaper option to transport children out of borough.
The education law states that the local authority must provide transport to and from the school that is named in the statement. This must be appropriate to the child's needs and include the provision of an escort (in Harvey's case a nurse) who is trained to cope with the child's medical needs.
The escort (nurse) is because Harvey's condition is life-threatening and he has to have someone capable of giving emergency injections to save his life.
"Now Katie Price's representatives have posted a statement online which explained that the £1,000 sum she spoke about was not the cost to the local authority but her estimate of fees she would pay if she used a private driver and a private nurse.
The cost of the school placement together with transport is not means-tested as it is provided for the child. Local authorities do not have special needs schools locally as these have been closed during the last 15 years as it was deemed a cheaper option to transport children out of borough.
The education law states that the local authority must provide transport to and from the school that is named in the statement. This must be appropriate to the child's needs and include the provision of an escort (in Harvey's case a nurse) who is trained to cope with the child's medical needs.
The escort (nurse) is because Harvey's condition is life-threatening and he has to have someone capable of giving emergency injections to save his life.
Are people here seriously deluded? The woman pays absolutely huge amounts in tax each year, and so is entitled to a service from the NHS, is entitled to have her bins collected, is entitled to Harvey receivng schooling;transport. She pays huge amounts of tax for the use of the service.
Does she pay huge amounts? I'm not so certain. She will use accountants to vastly reduce her liabilities, I think it's fair to say she has money offshore out of the taxmans reach.
Maybe it's time the HMRC made company and individuals tax records available for all to see, it would certainly stop this he pays so little on a vast fortune mantra,
The council are paying up to £1000 for transport for her disabled child to and from school. Cost of an average journey between her house and the special school is about £120 each way. But her son requires a nurse too as an escort who gets paid by the hour about £11. But then the council pay for the time it takes to get both the taxi and escort to get to the school and back. So it is roughly £1000 a day. £5000 a week. £20,000 a month. £240,00 a year the council spend to send the son of this multi millionaire woman - the father of the child is also a multi millionare, footballer Dwight Yorke - to school. That's double what the prime minister earns. 10 times more than what a teacher earns or a nurse. If he goes to school for 14 years that will amount to roughly £4m for his education. Imagine what the council could do with that amount of money. You could run a school for 5 years for that. I believe it's time the councils looked at the bigger picture. Start spending money where it's feasible and effective for the majority and not the few. Then there are people who can't get the basic care needs because local authorities will not pay. They can't pay because they have had their funds cut. Disabled people are being asked to have less care. They can't even get £14 a day for 2 hours. Imagine how many people's care needs could be met with this. I believe the council should start thinking more properly about all this.
She pays her taxes and given her earnings her tax bill is probably far higher than most of ours. She has paid in her dues and some so why should she not take the benefits she is entitled to? It is so easy to jump on emotive media stories such as this without taking into account the whole picture. Given her earnings she gets zero family credit. Her younger kids are probably privately educated so costing the taxpayer nothing. She has a disabled child and it is probably just easier to handle their journey to school via the standard government scheme rather than organising it yourself and having to make sure the people you employ are properly trained and have had the appropriate police checks. Cut her some slack people, having a disabled child cannot be easy.
Does she pay huge amounts? I'm not so certain. She will use accountants to vastly reduce her liabilities, I think it's fair to say she has money offshore out of the taxmans reach.
Maybe it's time the HMRC made company and individuals tax records available for all to see, it would certainly stop this he pays so little on a vast fortune mantra,
Do you think Harvey shouldn't be allowed to use the NHS to treat his conditions because Katie can afford to go private?
Do you think Harvey shouldn't be allowed to use the NHS to treat his conditions because Katie can afford to go private?
I believe the NHS should be free at the point of use for all eligible UK citizens, I also believe that if you have an income that can afford you the luxury of private health care and education then you should go private thus alleviating the burden on the hard pressed services.
I don't see it as queue jumping I see it as personal choice, I do have problems with those that have all the benefits of the NHS but keep their tax liabilities to a strict minimum using means to pay as little as they can via offshore tax haven. The child is blameless but the mother is not, she kind of started the hoo haa, and rightly or wrongly as folk see it this will get people's hackles up.
I believe the NHS should be free at the point of use for all eligible UK citizens, I also believe that if you have an income that can afford you the luxury of private health care and education then you should go private thus alleviating the burden on the hard pressed services.
I don't see it as queue jumping I see it as personal choice, I do have problems with those that have all the benefits of the NHS but keep their tax liabilities to a strict minimum using means to pay as little as they can via offshore tax haven. The child is blameless but the mother is not, she kind of started the hoo haa, and rightly or wrongly as folk see it this will get people's hackles up.
So they should pay twice for healthcare and education?
So they should pay twice for healthcare and education?
many of us do and don't care about it, the point is Price I feel is using this as a publicity tool, she is the architect of the so called scandal.
Perhaps she should have minded the phrase 'better to keep your mouth shut and let's others think you a fool rather than opening it a leaving others in no doubt'.
It would be costing the state an awful lot more if she had given up caring for him at home and put him in residential care. She's saving the state money like lots of carers by looking after their loved ones at home. She contributes anyway through her taxes.
Does she pay huge amounts? I'm not so certain. She will use accountants to vastly reduce her liabilities, I think it's fair to say she has money offshore out of the taxmans reach.
Maybe it's time the HMRC made company and individuals tax records available for all to see, it would certainly stop this he pays so little on a vast fortune mantra,
From what I've seen the higher the earnings the more loopholes are found and exploited I doubt she pays as much as someone working in Tescos on the checkouts
I think the real question is not 'is she entitled?' but more 'Does she have a moral responsibility?'
I know if it was within my means to pay for my child's care I would do that rather than take money from the state even if I was entitled. I wouldn't feel right about taking the money when it meant someone else might have to do without. But that would be down to my morals.
In the case of Harvey no one is saying that he is not entitled to the help he gets but the question really is morally should his parents fund his expenses when they don't have to?
I know from personal experience that some children with disabilities have to fight for this type of treatment - My own nephew has autism and when he had to go to 'big school' my sister had to fight for two years for him to get transport as he was deemed 'well enough' to get a public train over 20 miles by himself.
If I need an operation and can pay for it privately then I would do so rather than put extra strain on the NHS. I would rather pay that worry that I had taken the opportunity from someone worse off than myself.
I believe the NHS should be free at the point of use for all eligible UK citizens, I also believe that if you have an income that can afford you the luxury of private health care and education then you should go private thus alleviating the burden on the hard pressed services.
I don't see it as queue jumping I see it as personal choice, I do have problems with those that have all the benefits of the NHS but keep their tax liabilities to a strict minimum using means to pay as little as they can via offshore tax haven. The child is blameless but the mother is not, she kind of started the hoo haa, and rightly or wrongly as folk see it this will get people's hackles up.
You're being inconsistent there.
Either people should be compelled to use private health and education providers if they're income is above a certain level or people have choice. Which is it in your opinion?
As so many have said, it's the child's right to have education and transport to the place of education provided in such circumstances. If you don't agree then you need to raise this with your MP and argue for a change in the law.
From what I've seen the higher the earnings the more loopholes are found and exploited I doubt she pays as much as someone working in Tescos on the checkouts
I think the real question is not 'is she entitled?' but more 'Does she have a moral responsibility?'
I know if it was within my means to pay for my child's care I would do that rather than take money from the state even if I was entitled. I wouldn't feel right about taking the money when it meant someone else might have to do without. But that would be down to my morals.
[...]
If I need an operation and can pay for it privately then I would do so rather than put extra strain on the NHS. I would rather pay that worry that I had taken the opportunity from someone worse off than myself.
Or you can look at it from the point of view that if you've already 'paid' via taxes, why pay twice? There's no guarantee that acting as you would in this case would result in someone benefiting. Just as easily if there's less demand, a service could be reduced. I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as morals.
Comments
Every child who has an SEN Statement gets the same help, regardless of their parents income.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-school-tran...onal-needs-sen
If your child has a statement of special educational needs (SEN) which includes transport requirements, your council must provide them.
Exactly. The same rules apply for everyone. Comparing it to other disability or old aged scenarios is not comparing like for like.
One I'm not your honey >:( two my son has an autistic son who went to a special 74 miles from where they lived hey my d in l took him every day.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/what-katie-price-benefits-row-reveals-about-our-paradoxical-attitudes-towards
And again, that's nothing to do with Katie or Harvey Price.
Brilliant granny
There is no child in Britain disabled or otherwise getting taken to school by the local authority at a cost of a £1,000 a day.
There are no "special drivers" and KP doesn't have a say in who drives her child to school. Some local authorities insist that a driver has no contact with a child and it is up to the escort to ensure the child is securely fastened in a seat.
Drivers are employed by a taxi company or act as a single operator. Every driver has to have a NVQ/BTEC in taxi driving, enhanced CRB and pass the knowledge test. Driver do not need first aid knowledge. The escort is usually employed by the council.
Local authority put out school contract to a tender for all taxi companies to apply and whoever is the lowest bid gets the contract. Parents will get notification of the taxi company who takes their child and the name of the escort. Remember this is a part time job for an hour or 2 in the morning and the same in the afternoon. The average school contract is £500 a week. There aren't many who get a £1,000 a week never mind a day.
Safety is paramount. If a child is too violent the escort or driver can refuse to take a child. Sometime a restraining harness is used to keep a child in their seat for journeys.
I hope people don't get the impression that a £1,000 a day of their hard earned money gets spent on disabled children up and down the country going to and from school. It doesn't not even for KP.
Totally agree. Ignorance is no excuse. People should keep their mouths shut on subjects they are not qualified to speak on.
The cost of the school placement together with transport is not means-tested as it is provided for the child. Local authorities do not have special needs schools locally as these have been closed during the last 15 years as it was deemed a cheaper option to transport children out of borough.
The education law states that the local authority must provide transport to and from the school that is named in the statement. This must be appropriate to the child's needs and include the provision of an escort (in Harvey's case a nurse) who is trained to cope with the child's medical needs.
The escort (nurse) is because Harvey's condition is life-threatening and he has to have someone capable of giving emergency injections to save his life.
– Representatives for Katie Price"
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-01-27/katie-price-issues-statement-after-row-over-taxpayer-funded-cost-of-disabled-sons-care/
Because the system is flawed, it needs reform.
She can fund God knows how many lackeys at a cost of well over £100k yet bemoans the cost of funding her sons travel costs.
Thanks to her disabled have a new stick to beat on their backs.
Does she pay huge amounts? I'm not so certain. She will use accountants to vastly reduce her liabilities, I think it's fair to say she has money offshore out of the taxmans reach.
Maybe it's time the HMRC made company and individuals tax records available for all to see, it would certainly stop this he pays so little on a vast fortune mantra,
She pays her taxes and given her earnings her tax bill is probably far higher than most of ours. She has paid in her dues and some so why should she not take the benefits she is entitled to? It is so easy to jump on emotive media stories such as this without taking into account the whole picture. Given her earnings she gets zero family credit. Her younger kids are probably privately educated so costing the taxpayer nothing. She has a disabled child and it is probably just easier to handle their journey to school via the standard government scheme rather than organising it yourself and having to make sure the people you employ are properly trained and have had the appropriate police checks. Cut her some slack people, having a disabled child cannot be easy.
Do you think Harvey shouldn't be allowed to use the NHS to treat his conditions because Katie can afford to go private?
I believe the NHS should be free at the point of use for all eligible UK citizens, I also believe that if you have an income that can afford you the luxury of private health care and education then you should go private thus alleviating the burden on the hard pressed services.
I don't see it as queue jumping I see it as personal choice, I do have problems with those that have all the benefits of the NHS but keep their tax liabilities to a strict minimum using means to pay as little as they can via offshore tax haven. The child is blameless but the mother is not, she kind of started the hoo haa, and rightly or wrongly as folk see it this will get people's hackles up.
So they should pay twice for healthcare and education?
many of us do and don't care about it, the point is Price I feel is using this as a publicity tool, she is the architect of the so called scandal.
Perhaps she should have minded the phrase 'better to keep your mouth shut and let's others think you a fool rather than opening it a leaving others in no doubt'.
The disabled child is not claiming anything. His very rich mother is.
From what I've seen the higher the earnings the more loopholes are found and exploited I doubt she pays as much as someone working in Tescos on the checkouts
She didn't have to though, the Council would have paid for his transport.
I know if it was within my means to pay for my child's care I would do that rather than take money from the state even if I was entitled. I wouldn't feel right about taking the money when it meant someone else might have to do without. But that would be down to my morals.
In the case of Harvey no one is saying that he is not entitled to the help he gets but the question really is morally should his parents fund his expenses when they don't have to?
I know from personal experience that some children with disabilities have to fight for this type of treatment - My own nephew has autism and when he had to go to 'big school' my sister had to fight for two years for him to get transport as he was deemed 'well enough' to get a public train over 20 miles by himself.
If I need an operation and can pay for it privately then I would do so rather than put extra strain on the NHS. I would rather pay that worry that I had taken the opportunity from someone worse off than myself.
You're being inconsistent there.
Either people should be compelled to use private health and education providers if they're income is above a certain level or people have choice. Which is it in your opinion?
As so many have said, it's the child's right to have education and transport to the place of education provided in such circumstances. If you don't agree then you need to raise this with your MP and argue for a change in the law.
Seriously?
What are you basing this guess on?
Or you can look at it from the point of view that if you've already 'paid' via taxes, why pay twice? There's no guarantee that acting as you would in this case would result in someone benefiting. Just as easily if there's less demand, a service could be reduced. I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as morals.