Local Council decision, nothing to do with Cameron, The Tories or the LibDems.
But being considered due to cutbacks in local government funding caused by a reduction in the money coming from central government, so everything to do with Cameron and co. They can't keep blaming others for the problems caused by their decisions.
But being considered due to cutbacks in local government funding caused by a reduction in the money coming from central government, so everything to do with Cameron and co. They can't keep blaming others for the problems caused by their decisions.
Indeed, which has everything to do with the mess our finances are in because of the previous Labour administration. No matter who got in we would have had painful cutbacks anyway.
But being considered due to cutbacks in local government funding caused by a reduction in the money coming from central government, so everything to do with Cameron and co. They can't keep blaming others for the problems caused by their decisions.
What was the alternative? Keep borrowing money to pay for non-positions in the public sector?
Indeed, which has everything to do with the mess our finances are in because of the previous Labour administration. No matter who got in we would have had painful cutbacks anyway.
Quite.
I believe the councils can afford to cut a bit of useless fat anyway. They're the best at wasting other people's money.
Kids don't have the same mind set as adults. It's good to teach them the safe cross code but most kids have the attention span of a goldfish and even if they comprehend the dangers of the road when there is someone there lecturing them, they soon forget and make poor judgement calls, putting themselves and drivers in danger.
Cameron didn't make the decision. The council leaders did.But then again, explaining that to some people is a worthless exercise.
The Councils didn't decide to cut their own funding by up to 17% in a single year. All they can cut is those things which are not statutory - and road crossing patrols are one of those services. Libraries are another, music tuition for children, outdoor education services - expect to see everything non statutory cut - Councils are between a rock and a hard place.
Any reference to diversity officers will be ignored.
Well if we need to chose how about councils stop putting in plants then hoiking them out before they have a chance to bloom and all the watering during the summer must cost a bit too.
Free swimming and leisure services.
Council owned cars with personalised number plates.
I'm sure there are a few more that could be got rid of before lollipop patrols.
Any reference to diversity officers will be ignored.
because it trounces your argument?
How about an analysis of people who earn more than say £50k? Unless you're the head of the operation, I cannot see why you should be paid more than that.
Well if we need to chose how about councils stop putting in plants then hoiking them out before they have a chance to bloom and all the watering during the summer must cost a bit too.
Free swimming and leisure services.
Council owned cars with personalised number plates.
I'm sure there are a few more that could be got rid of before lollipop patrols.
Agreed.
There are a number of such things that can be curtailed, however I have a feeling many Labour run councils are cutting frontline services just to make a political point.
Agreed.
There are a number of such things that can be curtailed, however I have a feeling many Labour run councils are cutting frontline services just to make a political point.
They did the same with the poll tax - set the highest rates.
Labour really are sore losers and dirty tricksters.
This is a great example of the way H&S "nonsense" could be used against the government.
A risk assessment will have been carried out before deciding that a lollipop lady (or guy) is required.
If nothing else has changed then the risk is still the same so there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for reducing the safety measures that've already been implimented.
If they suggest that lollipop ladies are not actually neccesary then that, in itself, proves that the council has already been negligent in the way it's previously allocated funds to provide that service.
Equally, if there WAS a legitimate need for a lollipop lady to begin with and nothing has changed then the council ARE, indisputably, being negligent now by getting rid of them.
Lollipop ladies get paid about £12 per day or about £2.5k a year.
I'd bet that it costs at least £10k to install something like a zebra xing, getting on for half a million quid to build a bridge or tunnel across the road and it'll cost even more than that in costs when a kid is killed and the parents decide to sue the local council.
What's more, the same risk assessment that suggested that a lollipop lady was previously required will be irrefutably damning evidence that the council ARE negligent so the parents WILL win.
FWIW, around here there are no traffic lights or zebra xings so the lollipop ladies just have to wait for the smallest gaps in the traffic and march out into the road.
Instead of cutting salaries of the layers of management and getting rid of the Eritrean One Armed Lesbians Outreach Co-Ordinator at £45k a year they will shut down the local library or stop collecting rubbish
Absolutely, I'm an one-armed lesbian Eritrean but couldn't get any help from the outreach officer as I'm pre-op TG and the remit for the outreach officer hadn't yet been extended to that particular distinction Hopefully in 2015 when Labour get back in they'll have enough money to fund this officer's training!
This is a great example of the way H&S "nonsense" could be used against the government.
A risk assessment will have been carried out before deciding that a lollipop lady (or guy) is required.
If nothing else has changed then the risk is still the same so there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for reducing the safety measures that've already been implimented.
If they suggest that lollipop ladies are not actually neccesary then that, in itself, proves that the council has already been negligent in the way it's previously allocated funds to provide that service.
Equally, if there WAS a legitimate need for a lollipop lady to begin with and nothing has changed then the council ARE, indisputably, being negligent now by getting rid of them.
Lollipop ladies get paid about £12 per day or about £2.5k a year.
I'd bet that it costs at least £10k to install something like a zebra xing, getting on for half a million quid to build a bridge or tunnel across the road and it'll cost even more than that in costs when a kid is killed and the parents decide to sue the local council.
What's more, the same risk assessment that suggested that a lollipop lady was previously required will be irrefutably damning evidence that the council ARE negligent so the parents WILL win.
FWIW, around here there are no traffic lights or zebra xings so the lollipop ladies just have to wait for the smallest gaps in the traffic and march out into the road.
That's very good but I think you're assuming that councils should employ logic and sense in their decision-making. That will never do.
"were all in this together" Wonder how that explains footballers getting paid millions by the week for kicking a ball around. While NHS Nurses who save lives and provide something to the healthcare of thousands get next to nothing year-round.
"were all in this together" Wonder how that explains footballers getting paid millions by the week for kicking a ball around. While NHS Nurses who save lives and provide something to the healthcare of thousands get next to nothing year-round.
I'm not agreeing with high footballers wages but footie is private industry. NHS is state funded as are the councils.
You could make footballers penniless by stopping attending the matches.
The problem with state funded things like councils is that they can be as inefficient as useless as you want, there's always a pot ot taxpayers money to delve into. When that pot becomes shallower the useless mgt and pen pushers at the top pull out all the stops to save their hides. This is why we see front line staff getting the chop. Mgt won't sack their own kind. It's the same with the NHS.
The only way I can turn into the one-way street where I work is when the lollipop lady holds up the oncoming traffic. There would be loads of accidents without her. Kids will get hurt.
Yep they sure will...then the Sun will jump on the bring them back bandwagon. Terrible how they are playing games with road safety.
Anyone notice that during school holidays it does not stop children running all over the city streets, riding bikes everywhere and crossing hundreds of roads every day without a lollipop person in sight;)
How sad. The little old lady who does the job at the school over the road from us is unlikely to find another job at her age. This government's plan to devolve responsibility to local councils (as well as forcing them to make ridiculous cuts while central government continues to haemorrage money on idiotic and pointless restructures of the schools system and NHS - basically just to be different from Labour) just means that when everything inevitably goes tits up, they'll be able to stick their hands up and say 'it's not our fault.' That actually seems to be their plan regarding pretty much everything they're doing.
Indeed, which has everything to do with the mess our finances are in because of the previous Labour administration. No matter who got in we would have had painful cutbacks anyway.
Two words: fiscal stimulus. Gordon Brown deliberately overspent to try and keep the economy out of recession. This government are trying the opposite. According to the principles of Keynesian economics, they'll probably fail.
And in any case, the over-spending problem has been ignored (and added to) by every single government since the second world war. The Tories have done quite a good job of blaming Labour but they're just as guilty in reality.
Comments
Local Council decision, nothing to do with Cameron, The Tories or the LibDems.
But being considered due to cutbacks in local government funding caused by a reduction in the money coming from central government, so everything to do with Cameron and co. They can't keep blaming others for the problems caused by their decisions.
Indeed, which has everything to do with the mess our finances are in because of the previous Labour administration. No matter who got in we would have had painful cutbacks anyway.
What was the alternative? Keep borrowing money to pay for non-positions in the public sector?
Quite.
I believe the councils can afford to cut a bit of useless fat anyway. They're the best at wasting other people's money.
The Councils didn't decide to cut their own funding by up to 17% in a single year. All they can cut is those things which are not statutory - and road crossing patrols are one of those services. Libraries are another, music tuition for children, outdoor education services - expect to see everything non statutory cut - Councils are between a rock and a hard place.
Lazy.
Which services are you happy to do without.
Any reference to diversity officers will be ignored.
or a couple of diversity managers (or other overpaid non-jobbers)
Well if we need to chose how about councils stop putting in plants then hoiking them out before they have a chance to bloom and all the watering during the summer must cost a bit too.
Free swimming and leisure services.
Council owned cars with personalised number plates.
I'm sure there are a few more that could be got rid of before lollipop patrols.
because it trounces your argument?
How about an analysis of people who earn more than say £50k? Unless you're the head of the operation, I cannot see why you should be paid more than that.
Jobs in leisure. We can do without swimming pools and leisure centres etc. in times of financial austerity.
We all need to play and exercise but in difficult times I'd rather a swimming pool attendant lost their job than a primary school teaching assistant.
Agreed.
There are a number of such things that can be curtailed, however I have a feeling many Labour run councils are cutting frontline services just to make a political point.
They did the same with the poll tax - set the highest rates.
Labour really are sore losers and dirty tricksters.
One of the very worst things about the Conservatives being in power is that Labour are in opposition.
A risk assessment will have been carried out before deciding that a lollipop lady (or guy) is required.
If nothing else has changed then the risk is still the same so there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for reducing the safety measures that've already been implimented.
If they suggest that lollipop ladies are not actually neccesary then that, in itself, proves that the council has already been negligent in the way it's previously allocated funds to provide that service.
Equally, if there WAS a legitimate need for a lollipop lady to begin with and nothing has changed then the council ARE, indisputably, being negligent now by getting rid of them.
Lollipop ladies get paid about £12 per day or about £2.5k a year.
I'd bet that it costs at least £10k to install something like a zebra xing, getting on for half a million quid to build a bridge or tunnel across the road and it'll cost even more than that in costs when a kid is killed and the parents decide to sue the local council.
What's more, the same risk assessment that suggested that a lollipop lady was previously required will be irrefutably damning evidence that the council ARE negligent so the parents WILL win.
FWIW, around here there are no traffic lights or zebra xings so the lollipop ladies just have to wait for the smallest gaps in the traffic and march out into the road.
Absolutely, I'm an one-armed lesbian Eritrean but couldn't get any help from the outreach officer as I'm pre-op TG and the remit for the outreach officer hadn't yet been extended to that particular distinction
Exactly my feelings...
That's very good but I think you're assuming that councils should employ logic and sense in their decision-making. That will never do.
I'm not agreeing with high footballers wages but footie is private industry. NHS is state funded as are the councils.
You could make footballers penniless by stopping attending the matches.
The problem with state funded things like councils is that they can be as inefficient as useless as you want, there's always a pot ot taxpayers money to delve into. When that pot becomes shallower the useless mgt and pen pushers at the top pull out all the stops to save their hides. This is why we see front line staff getting the chop. Mgt won't sack their own kind. It's the same with the NHS.
Yep they sure will...then the Sun will jump on the bring them back bandwagon. Terrible how they are playing games with road safety.
Two words: fiscal stimulus. Gordon Brown deliberately overspent to try and keep the economy out of recession. This government are trying the opposite. According to the principles of Keynesian economics, they'll probably fail.
And in any case, the over-spending problem has been ignored (and added to) by every single government since the second world war. The Tories have done quite a good job of blaming Labour but they're just as guilty in reality.