School crossing patrols could be scrapped in Essex

Maldon and Burnham Standard: A lollipop lady at Cherry Tree Primary School A lollipop lady at Cherry Tree Primary School

School crossing patrols have been put under the spotlight in a bid to save cash.

Tory-led Essex County Council has admitted is scrutinising the service provided by lollipop people due to a funding black hole.

It could mean that patrols at 55 schools in Essex are affected, including Cherry Tree Primary School, in Basildon.

County Hall claims that it has started talking to schools about whether they want to scrap the patrol service outside their classrooms.

The cash-strapped authority could even ask schools to fund the services.

No decisions have been made yet, but depending on consultations, patrols could be removed this summer.

Rodney Bass, the Tory administration’s cabinet member for transport, said: “Due to the current economic climate and the pressure on local authority budgets we are reviewing the delivery of many aspects of public service delivery, particularly non-statutory services.

“In relation to any changes to the School Crossing Patrol, no formal decisions have been made.”

Parents can have their say by visiting www.essexinsight.org.uk.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:14pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Tom Jea says...

I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money.

If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it.

They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop.

I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols!
I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols! Tom Jea
  • Score: 41

12:16pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Tom Jea says...

By the way, as this is an important subject, could the usual commentators (I think several are local politicians) try to refrain from making this into a political slang-fest, please? It would be great to stick to the subject.
By the way, as this is an important subject, could the usual commentators (I think several are local politicians) try to refrain from making this into a political slang-fest, please? It would be great to stick to the subject. Tom Jea
  • Score: 31

12:34pm Sat 15 Mar 14

emcee says...

These days very few primary school children walk to and from school on their own (parents are too afraid to let them). They are either driven by car or they are walked with a responsible adult, normally the parent themselves.
If each school feels there is still a requirement for school crossing patrols, I see no reason why schools cannot allocate staff for the job. Lollipop people, nice as they are, are of an era when children were allowed to be children and were allowed to do things for themselves and school crossing patrols were just an added safety precaution to facilitate this.
Times and attitudes change and even though it will be a shame to see them go, there is no point paying for something merely to uphold a "traditional" need if it no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed to do.
These days very few primary school children walk to and from school on their own (parents are too afraid to let them). They are either driven by car or they are walked with a responsible adult, normally the parent themselves. If each school feels there is still a requirement for school crossing patrols, I see no reason why schools cannot allocate staff for the job. Lollipop people, nice as they are, are of an era when children were allowed to be children and were allowed to do things for themselves and school crossing patrols were just an added safety precaution to facilitate this. Times and attitudes change and even though it will be a shame to see them go, there is no point paying for something merely to uphold a "traditional" need if it no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed to do. emcee
  • Score: -21

12:48pm Sat 15 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

Tom Jea wrote:
By the way, as this is an important subject, could the usual commentators (I think several are local politicians) try to refrain from making this into a political slang-fest, please? It would be great to stick to the subject.
Starting with you....
[quote][p][bold]Tom Jea[/bold] wrote: By the way, as this is an important subject, could the usual commentators (I think several are local politicians) try to refrain from making this into a political slang-fest, please? It would be great to stick to the subject.[/p][/quote]Starting with you.... carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -21

12:51pm Sat 15 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

They need to be ousted, for cost and health and safety reasons, a pelican crossing is sufficient in this modern day and age, talking of which, why should it be acceptable for a retiree to stand in the rain, allowing children to cross a busy road?
They need to be ousted, for cost and health and safety reasons, a pelican crossing is sufficient in this modern day and age, talking of which, why should it be acceptable for a retiree to stand in the rain, allowing children to cross a busy road? carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -32

12:53pm Sat 15 Mar 14

why?1997 says...

They have already made the one outside Lee Chapel school redundant. Obviously stopping children being injured isn't a priority to the council. They have far more important things to spend our council tax on!
They have already made the one outside Lee Chapel school redundant. Obviously stopping children being injured isn't a priority to the council. They have far more important things to spend our council tax on! why?1997
  • Score: 20

12:55pm Sat 15 Mar 14

AuldGit says...

emcee wrote:
These days very few primary school children walk to and from school on their own (parents are too afraid to let them). They are either driven by car or they are walked with a responsible adult, normally the parent themselves.
If each school feels there is still a requirement for school crossing patrols, I see no reason why schools cannot allocate staff for the job. Lollipop people, nice as they are, are of an era when children were allowed to be children and were allowed to do things for themselves and school crossing patrols were just an added safety precaution to facilitate this.
Times and attitudes change and even though it will be a shame to see them go, there is no point paying for something merely to uphold a "traditional" need if it no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed to do.
The way some of the parents who drive their children to school and pull up abruptly (often on the zig zag lines outside schools) makes the services of lollipop crossing attendants all the more essential for the more sensible who opt for the healthier option of walking.
Besides the option of allocating school staff is impractical - some of the roads children cross are not immediately adjacent to the school premises, and so such staff would be unavailable punctually at the start of the school day.
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: These days very few primary school children walk to and from school on their own (parents are too afraid to let them). They are either driven by car or they are walked with a responsible adult, normally the parent themselves. If each school feels there is still a requirement for school crossing patrols, I see no reason why schools cannot allocate staff for the job. Lollipop people, nice as they are, are of an era when children were allowed to be children and were allowed to do things for themselves and school crossing patrols were just an added safety precaution to facilitate this. Times and attitudes change and even though it will be a shame to see them go, there is no point paying for something merely to uphold a "traditional" need if it no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed to do.[/p][/quote]The way some of the parents who drive their children to school and pull up abruptly (often on the zig zag lines outside schools) makes the services of lollipop crossing attendants all the more essential for the more sensible who opt for the healthier option of walking. Besides the option of allocating school staff is impractical - some of the roads children cross are not immediately adjacent to the school premises, and so such staff would be unavailable punctually at the start of the school day. AuldGit
  • Score: 21

1:22pm Sat 15 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings..
The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings.. ThisYear
  • Score: 32

1:39pm Sat 15 Mar 14

rayleigh-girl says...

I think decisions on this matter need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Some crossings are more dangerous, and the addition of a crossing patrol helps to reduce the accident risk. However, there are also a number of schools in this area equipped with a pelican crossing which is ALSO attended by a crossing warden. This is hugely unnecessary, and also very inconvenient for traffic when the lights have returned to green and the crossing patrol remains in the road. Surely these are places where savings could be made first and foremost?
I think decisions on this matter need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Some crossings are more dangerous, and the addition of a crossing patrol helps to reduce the accident risk. However, there are also a number of schools in this area equipped with a pelican crossing which is ALSO attended by a crossing warden. This is hugely unnecessary, and also very inconvenient for traffic when the lights have returned to green and the crossing patrol remains in the road. Surely these are places where savings could be made first and foremost? rayleigh-girl
  • Score: 13

1:53pm Sat 15 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

ThisYear wrote:
The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings..
Your wandering off the subject, try to remain focussed...
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings..[/p][/quote]Your wandering off the subject, try to remain focussed... carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -23

2:26pm Sat 15 Mar 14

GrumpyofLeigh says...

It came as a surprise to me that lollypop ladies are employees. Surely a rota of volunteers could be drawn up from the parents of the children so affected. Big Society anyone?
It came as a surprise to me that lollypop ladies are employees. Surely a rota of volunteers could be drawn up from the parents of the children so affected. Big Society anyone? GrumpyofLeigh
  • Score: -12

3:12pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Living the La Vida Legra says...

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
It came as a surprise to me that lollypop ladies are employees. Surely a rota of volunteers could be drawn up from the parents of the children so affected. Big Society anyone?
I also thought that they were volunteers
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: It came as a surprise to me that lollypop ladies are employees. Surely a rota of volunteers could be drawn up from the parents of the children so affected. Big Society anyone?[/p][/quote]I also thought that they were volunteers Living the La Vida Legra
  • Score: -9

4:00pm Sat 15 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings..
Your wandering off the subject, try to remain focussed...
The contents of my post does adhere to the subject.. ie the saving of monies..
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings..[/p][/quote]Your wandering off the subject, try to remain focussed...[/p][/quote]The contents of my post does adhere to the subject.. ie the saving of monies.. ThisYear
  • Score: 11

5:31pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Jack222 says...

Excellent idea. Why cant parents/ carers help their children cross the road like they do at other times? We need more parental responsibility and less government intervention wasting our money.
Excellent idea. Why cant parents/ carers help their children cross the road like they do at other times? We need more parental responsibility and less government intervention wasting our money. Jack222
  • Score: -2

6:53pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Mattster says...

So I'm going to be paying over £1000 this year to ECC for what exactly?

Part Night Lighting
Closure of All Recycling Centres
Withdrawal of Crossing Assistants
Appalling Road Maintenance
Pay-outs to people who cant look where there going

Surprised they don't include a tube of lubricant with your Council Tax Bill.
So I'm going to be paying over £1000 this year to ECC for what exactly? Part Night Lighting Closure of All Recycling Centres Withdrawal of Crossing Assistants Appalling Road Maintenance Pay-outs to people who cant look where there going Surprised they don't include a tube of lubricant with your Council Tax Bill. Mattster
  • Score: 21

6:58pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Mattster says...

ThisYear wrote:
The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings..
Good point well made, keep it up.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings..[/p][/quote]Good point well made, keep it up. Mattster
  • Score: 9

7:34pm Sat 15 Mar 14

gizabreak says...

This only goes to prove how much value and importance children's safety is when it comes to ECC.......sorry to say it but I have shoes smarter than some of these people !
This only goes to prove how much value and importance children's safety is when it comes to ECC.......sorry to say it but I have shoes smarter than some of these people ! gizabreak
  • Score: 14

7:37pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Mattster says...

Mattster wrote:
So I'm going to be paying over £1000 this year to ECC for what exactly?

Part Night Lighting
Closure of All Recycling Centres
Withdrawal of Crossing Assistants
Appalling Road Maintenance
Pay-outs to people who cant look where there going

Surprised they don't include a tube of lubricant with your Council Tax Bill.
Forgot to add the costly farce of the attempted Deanes School closure and aftermath.
[quote][p][bold]Mattster[/bold] wrote: So I'm going to be paying over £1000 this year to ECC for what exactly? Part Night Lighting Closure of All Recycling Centres Withdrawal of Crossing Assistants Appalling Road Maintenance Pay-outs to people who cant look where there going Surprised they don't include a tube of lubricant with your Council Tax Bill.[/p][/quote]Forgot to add the costly farce of the attempted Deanes School closure and aftermath. Mattster
  • Score: 8

8:54pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Boris says...

Let the schools pay their own lollipop persons, funded by a levy of £1 a day on every parent who drives a child to the school, or £2 a day if they use a 4x4.
Let the schools pay their own lollipop persons, funded by a levy of £1 a day on every parent who drives a child to the school, or £2 a day if they use a 4x4. Boris
  • Score: 3

9:53pm Sat 15 Mar 14

pierre-pierre says...

going past the B1256 - Rayne Road Braintree four days a week before 9:00, which has a crossing that serves Tabor High School and is a long way from the School, ages 11 to 16, very rare to see a parent, in the other direction would expect to see younger children going to the Junior school in Clare road, but havnt seen one yet
going past the B1256 - Rayne Road Braintree four days a week before 9:00, which has a crossing that serves Tabor High School and is a long way from the School, ages 11 to 16, very rare to see a parent, in the other direction would expect to see younger children going to the Junior school in Clare road, but havnt seen one yet pierre-pierre
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Sat 15 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Mattster wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings..
Good point well made, keep it up.
Yes, you too.
[quote][p][bold]Mattster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: The ECC could save on the free lunches and buffet services provided at some of their meetings..[/p][/quote]Good point well made, keep it up.[/p][/quote]Yes, you too. ThisYear
  • Score: 2

11:15pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Reginald47 says...

Tom Jea wrote:
I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols!
We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.
[quote][p][bold]Tom Jea[/bold] wrote: I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols![/p][/quote]We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either. Reginald47
  • Score: -4

5:54am Sun 16 Mar 14

Bangemup says...

I have never heard such a stupid idea ever , So how much is a Child's worth,
not a lot if you are a Local Authority . There are many other ways money could be saved and this is not one of the , cut back on Civic expenses for a start !
I have never heard such a stupid idea ever , So how much is a Child's worth, not a lot if you are a Local Authority . There are many other ways money could be saved and this is not one of the , cut back on Civic expenses for a start ! Bangemup
  • Score: 11

8:33am Sun 16 Mar 14

jut1972 says...

Reginald47 wrote:
Tom Jea wrote:
I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols!
We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.
Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week.

This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving.

Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space.
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Jea[/bold] wrote: I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols![/p][/quote]We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.[/p][/quote]Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week. This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving. Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space. jut1972
  • Score: 8

8:50am Sun 16 Mar 14

gizabreak says...

jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Tom Jea wrote:
I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols!
We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.
Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week.

This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving.

Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space.
Would be nice if he even earned his money by answering an email, but, as stated on his automatic response.....HE ONLY SPEAKS TO COUNCILLORS, TRY IT.....SO he doesn't want to be bothered by us ordinary people....he thinks he is royalty
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Jea[/bold] wrote: I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols![/p][/quote]We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.[/p][/quote]Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week. This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving. Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space.[/p][/quote]Would be nice if he even earned his money by answering an email, but, as stated on his automatic response.....HE ONLY SPEAKS TO COUNCILLORS, TRY IT.....SO he doesn't want to be bothered by us ordinary people....he thinks he is royalty gizabreak
  • Score: 8

11:40am Sun 16 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

gizabreak wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Tom Jea wrote:
I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols!
We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.
Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week.

This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving.

Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space.
Would be nice if he even earned his money by answering an email, but, as stated on his automatic response.....HE ONLY SPEAKS TO COUNCILLORS, TRY IT.....SO he doesn't want to be bothered by us ordinary people....he thinks he is royalty
High time the children learnt the Green Cross Code, install pelican crossings, and get away from the unacceptable idea, of having an elderly lady with a pole.
[quote][p][bold]gizabreak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Jea[/bold] wrote: I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols![/p][/quote]We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.[/p][/quote]Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week. This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving. Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space.[/p][/quote]Would be nice if he even earned his money by answering an email, but, as stated on his automatic response.....HE ONLY SPEAKS TO COUNCILLORS, TRY IT.....SO he doesn't want to be bothered by us ordinary people....he thinks he is royalty[/p][/quote]High time the children learnt the Green Cross Code, install pelican crossings, and get away from the unacceptable idea, of having an elderly lady with a pole. carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -8

11:20pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Kim Gandy says...

Tom Jea wrote:
By the way, as this is an important subject, could the usual commentators (I think several are local politicians) try to refrain from making this into a political slang-fest, please? It would be great to stick to the subject.
Wooohooo.... common sense at last. You should come here more often.
[quote][p][bold]Tom Jea[/bold] wrote: By the way, as this is an important subject, could the usual commentators (I think several are local politicians) try to refrain from making this into a political slang-fest, please? It would be great to stick to the subject.[/p][/quote]Wooohooo.... common sense at last. You should come here more often. Kim Gandy
  • Score: -5

11:40pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Kim Gandy says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
gizabreak wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Tom Jea wrote:
I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols!
We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.
Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week.

This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving.

Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space.
Would be nice if he even earned his money by answering an email, but, as stated on his automatic response.....HE ONLY SPEAKS TO COUNCILLORS, TRY IT.....SO he doesn't want to be bothered by us ordinary people....he thinks he is royalty
High time the children learnt the Green Cross Code, install pelican crossings, and get away from the unacceptable idea, of having an elderly lady with a pole.
Shows how much you know.

A lot of them are younger women. I've even seen younger men.

And what's wrong with an "elderly lady" anyway? Have you actually BOTHERED to see what their job involves?

I love how folk just make flip comments on here without RESEARCH.

I am involved with the community and have been for a long time because I choose to be. I make it my business to know how my money is spent and wasted. I have worked as a volunteer and paid, on many different levels.

By far the biggest waste is on so called executives and Guardian jobs, sitting in their ivory towers, whilst these decent people are out in all weathers ensuring the safety of other people.

Tell me, what IS it you do for the community that is so impressive?
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gizabreak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Jea[/bold] wrote: I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols![/p][/quote]We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.[/p][/quote]Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week. This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving. Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space.[/p][/quote]Would be nice if he even earned his money by answering an email, but, as stated on his automatic response.....HE ONLY SPEAKS TO COUNCILLORS, TRY IT.....SO he doesn't want to be bothered by us ordinary people....he thinks he is royalty[/p][/quote]High time the children learnt the Green Cross Code, install pelican crossings, and get away from the unacceptable idea, of having an elderly lady with a pole.[/p][/quote]Shows how much you know. A lot of them are younger women. I've even seen younger men. And what's wrong with an "elderly lady" anyway? Have you actually BOTHERED to see what their job involves? I love how folk just make flip comments on here without RESEARCH. I am involved with the community and have been for a long time because I choose to be. I make it my business to know how my money is spent and wasted. I have worked as a volunteer and paid, on many different levels. By far the biggest waste is on so called executives and Guardian jobs, sitting in their ivory towers, whilst these decent people are out in all weathers ensuring the safety of other people. Tell me, what IS it you do for the community that is so impressive? Kim Gandy
  • Score: -4

7:01am Mon 17 Mar 14

Happy Chickie says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
gizabreak wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Tom Jea wrote:
I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols!
We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.
Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week.

This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving.

Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space.
Would be nice if he even earned his money by answering an email, but, as stated on his automatic response.....HE ONLY SPEAKS TO COUNCILLORS, TRY IT.....SO he doesn't want to be bothered by us ordinary people....he thinks he is royalty
High time the children learnt the Green Cross Code, install pelican crossings, and get away from the unacceptable idea, of having an elderly lady with a pole.
Shows how much you know.

A lot of them are younger women. I've even seen younger men.

And what's wrong with an "elderly lady" anyway? Have you actually BOTHERED to see what their job involves?

I love how folk just make flip comments on here without RESEARCH.

I am involved with the community and have been for a long time because I choose to be. I make it my business to know how my money is spent and wasted. I have worked as a volunteer and paid, on many different levels.

By far the biggest waste is on so called executives and Guardian jobs, sitting in their ivory towers, whilst these decent people are out in all weathers ensuring the safety of other people.

Tell me, what IS it you do for the community that is so impressive?
You involved with the community? God help us all.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gizabreak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Jea[/bold] wrote: I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols![/p][/quote]We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.[/p][/quote]Or compare that with Myland school which did have a crossing patrol. It was taken away and 2 kids were hospitalised last week. This is a cynical move by ECC the consultation will cost more than the staff saving. Rodney Bass needs to get a kick up the backside. Waste of space.[/p][/quote]Would be nice if he even earned his money by answering an email, but, as stated on his automatic response.....HE ONLY SPEAKS TO COUNCILLORS, TRY IT.....SO he doesn't want to be bothered by us ordinary people....he thinks he is royalty[/p][/quote]High time the children learnt the Green Cross Code, install pelican crossings, and get away from the unacceptable idea, of having an elderly lady with a pole.[/p][/quote]Shows how much you know. A lot of them are younger women. I've even seen younger men. And what's wrong with an "elderly lady" anyway? Have you actually BOTHERED to see what their job involves? I love how folk just make flip comments on here without RESEARCH. I am involved with the community and have been for a long time because I choose to be. I make it my business to know how my money is spent and wasted. I have worked as a volunteer and paid, on many different levels. By far the biggest waste is on so called executives and Guardian jobs, sitting in their ivory towers, whilst these decent people are out in all weathers ensuring the safety of other people. Tell me, what IS it you do for the community that is so impressive?[/p][/quote]You involved with the community? God help us all. Happy Chickie
  • Score: 8

9:21am Mon 17 Mar 14

The King of Colchester says...

This cynical move to save money will end up in the loss of life.

Maybe this is the Tories way of saving money on the 'Big Society', by reducing it...
This cynical move to save money will end up in the loss of life. Maybe this is the Tories way of saving money on the 'Big Society', by reducing it... The King of Colchester
  • Score: 5

2:13pm Mon 17 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

Reginald47 wrote:
Tom Jea wrote: I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols!
We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.
That's great to hear, but just because there have been no injuries for a year or so, doesn't mean we should gamble with kids' lives. If just one child is hurt over the next 10 years as a result of this decision, it make the decision a bad one.
The lollipop ladies / men bring added awareness to road users near schools, aside from actually stopping the traffic. And how much will we save by cutting the jobs of these part time (probably minimum wage) employees?
Like other posters have said, let's delve into how much councillors' expenses are, with free lunches and buffets etc. There must be bigger savings to be made in that area...
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Jea[/bold] wrote: I don't often comment on political news- but this idea is truly, truly awful! Lollipop men and ladies always seem to be lovely people, they do a hugely important job, in all weathers, and (I understand) for very little money. If they stop doing this job, they won't ever come back to it when the authorities realise what a mistake they have made, and that will be it. They ARE needed- drivers do not always stop. I would much, much rather see some of the Council Officers (employed by the councils on high wages with brilliant pensions) and Councillors (those we elect) gotten rid of- they are much less necessary than school crossing patrols![/p][/quote]We had a school crossing patrol on the pedestrian crossing near our school and she retired and was not replaced despite protests just like these over a year ago. What'shappened? Nothing - no crashes, no injuries, no incidents at all. Hopefully no-one else will have any either.[/p][/quote]That's great to hear, but just because there have been no injuries for a year or so, doesn't mean we should gamble with kids' lives. If just one child is hurt over the next 10 years as a result of this decision, it make the decision a bad one. The lollipop ladies / men bring added awareness to road users near schools, aside from actually stopping the traffic. And how much will we save by cutting the jobs of these part time (probably minimum wage) employees? Like other posters have said, let's delve into how much councillors' expenses are, with free lunches and buffets etc. There must be bigger savings to be made in that area... cg1blue
  • Score: 4

3:49pm Mon 17 Mar 14

pembury53 says...

Living the La Vida Legra wrote:
GrumpyofLeigh wrote: It came as a surprise to me that lollypop ladies are employees. Surely a rota of volunteers could be drawn up from the parents of the children so affected. Big Society anyone?
I also thought that they were volunteers
standing out in the wind and rain, to act as shepard to a bunch of foul mouthed oiks, for free..... are you serious ?
[quote][p][bold]Living the La Vida Legra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: It came as a surprise to me that lollypop ladies are employees. Surely a rota of volunteers could be drawn up from the parents of the children so affected. Big Society anyone?[/p][/quote]I also thought that they were volunteers[/p][/quote]standing out in the wind and rain, to act as shepard to a bunch of foul mouthed oiks, for free..... are you serious ? pembury53
  • Score: 2

5:27pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Scoot says...

The director of child services and education gets 175K a year. Do we ever hear him coming out and speaking ? No he just gets one of his minions to talk. SO whats the point of employing him on such a vast salary if we never hear from him ? Theres 175K saved , wonder how much more could be saved at County Hall ??
The director of child services and education gets 175K a year. Do we ever hear him coming out and speaking ? No he just gets one of his minions to talk. SO whats the point of employing him on such a vast salary if we never hear from him ? Theres 175K saved , wonder how much more could be saved at County Hall ?? Scoot
  • Score: 2

7:14pm Mon 17 Mar 14

jolllyboy says...

Southend schools lost most of theirs ages ago.
Southend schools lost most of theirs ages ago. jolllyboy
  • Score: 0

10:59pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Clacton Voice says...

Vote Tory, this is what happens.
Vote Tory, this is what happens. Clacton Voice
  • Score: 6

7:33am Wed 19 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

Clacton Voice wrote:
Vote Tory, this is what happens.
Such a vacuous comment
[quote][p][bold]Clacton Voice[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.[/p][/quote]Such a vacuous comment cg1blue
  • Score: -4

9:15am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

cg1blue wrote:
Clacton Voice wrote:
Vote Tory, this is what happens.
Such a vacuous comment
No, it isn't!

Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced.

You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clacton Voice[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.[/p][/quote]Such a vacuous comment[/p][/quote]No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 3

7:33pm Wed 19 Mar 14

denny17 says...

emcee wrote:
These days very few primary school children walk to and from school on their own (parents are too afraid to let them). They are either driven by car or they are walked with a responsible adult, normally the parent themselves.
If each school feels there is still a requirement for school crossing patrols, I see no reason why schools cannot allocate staff for the job. Lollipop people, nice as they are, are of an era when children were allowed to be children and were allowed to do things for themselves and school crossing patrols were just an added safety precaution to facilitate this.
Times and attitudes change and even though it will be a shame to see them go, there is no point paying for something merely to uphold a "traditional" need if it no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed to do.
I am a crossing patrol and there are a lot of children that come to school on their own knowing we are there to cross them safely
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: These days very few primary school children walk to and from school on their own (parents are too afraid to let them). They are either driven by car or they are walked with a responsible adult, normally the parent themselves. If each school feels there is still a requirement for school crossing patrols, I see no reason why schools cannot allocate staff for the job. Lollipop people, nice as they are, are of an era when children were allowed to be children and were allowed to do things for themselves and school crossing patrols were just an added safety precaution to facilitate this. Times and attitudes change and even though it will be a shame to see them go, there is no point paying for something merely to uphold a "traditional" need if it no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed to do.[/p][/quote]I am a crossing patrol and there are a lot of children that come to school on their own knowing we are there to cross them safely denny17
  • Score: 1

7:35pm Wed 19 Mar 14

denny17 says...

emcee wrote:
These days very few primary school children walk to and from school on their own (parents are too afraid to let them). They are either driven by car or they are walked with a responsible adult, normally the parent themselves.
If each school feels there is still a requirement for school crossing patrols, I see no reason why schools cannot allocate staff for the job. Lollipop people, nice as they are, are of an era when children were allowed to be children and were allowed to do things for themselves and school crossing patrols were just an added safety precaution to facilitate this.
Times and attitudes change and even though it will be a shame to see them go, there is no point paying for something merely to uphold a "traditional" need if it no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed to do.
I am a school patrol and there are a lot of children that walk to school on their own knowing we are there to cross them
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: These days very few primary school children walk to and from school on their own (parents are too afraid to let them). They are either driven by car or they are walked with a responsible adult, normally the parent themselves. If each school feels there is still a requirement for school crossing patrols, I see no reason why schools cannot allocate staff for the job. Lollipop people, nice as they are, are of an era when children were allowed to be children and were allowed to do things for themselves and school crossing patrols were just an added safety precaution to facilitate this. Times and attitudes change and even though it will be a shame to see them go, there is no point paying for something merely to uphold a "traditional" need if it no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed to do.[/p][/quote]I am a school patrol and there are a lot of children that walk to school on their own knowing we are there to cross them denny17
  • Score: 4

9:02am Thu 20 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Clacton Voice wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.
Such a vacuous comment
No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.
Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing.

Plus...

"he doesn't want to upset businesses"

Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue.

"and the NHS has been ring-fenced"

Good!
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clacton Voice[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.[/p][/quote]Such a vacuous comment[/p][/quote]No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.[/p][/quote]Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing. Plus... "he doesn't want to upset businesses" Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue. "and the NHS has been ring-fenced" Good! cg1blue
  • Score: -2

9:37am Thu 20 Mar 14

Letmetryagain says...

I don't see the point of having traffic lights and crossing supervisors.
How do children and parents manage to cross roads when there are neither available ?
I don't see the point of having traffic lights and crossing supervisors. How do children and parents manage to cross roads when there are neither available ? Letmetryagain
  • Score: -3

9:42am Thu 20 Mar 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

cg1blue wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Clacton Voice wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.
Such a vacuous comment
No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.
Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing.

Plus...

"he doesn't want to upset businesses"

Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue.

"and the NHS has been ring-fenced"

Good!
If you suscribe to the Tory con, then perhaps.

£18billion to the EU PER YEAR in membership subscriptions and £13billion abroad in foreign aid, but God forbid with made it safe for school children to cross the road.

By the way, the ring fencing of NHS funds me there will be LESS money going into it in 2 years time. Hardly great for a growing and aging population...
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clacton Voice[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.[/p][/quote]Such a vacuous comment[/p][/quote]No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.[/p][/quote]Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing. Plus... "he doesn't want to upset businesses" Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue. "and the NHS has been ring-fenced" Good![/p][/quote]If you suscribe to the Tory con, then perhaps. £18billion to the EU PER YEAR in membership subscriptions and £13billion abroad in foreign aid, but God forbid with made it safe for school children to cross the road. By the way, the ring fencing of NHS funds me there will be LESS money going into it in 2 years time. Hardly great for a growing and aging population... Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 2

9:45am Thu 20 Mar 14

The King of Colchester says...

cg1blue wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Clacton Voice wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.
Such a vacuous comment
No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.
Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing.

Plus...

"he doesn't want to upset businesses"

Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue.

"and the NHS has been ring-fenced"

Good!
you don't really believe all of that, do you? or is it because your one of the higher earners who will be much better off after yesterday?

Looks like someone has been brain washed by the ConLib gravy train press to me.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clacton Voice[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.[/p][/quote]Such a vacuous comment[/p][/quote]No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.[/p][/quote]Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing. Plus... "he doesn't want to upset businesses" Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue. "and the NHS has been ring-fenced" Good![/p][/quote]you don't really believe all of that, do you? or is it because your one of the higher earners who will be much better off after yesterday? Looks like someone has been brain washed by the ConLib gravy train press to me. The King of Colchester
  • Score: 3

10:45am Thu 20 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

The King of Colchester wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Clacton Voice wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.
Such a vacuous comment
No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.
Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing. Plus... "he doesn't want to upset businesses" Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue. "and the NHS has been ring-fenced" Good!
you don't really believe all of that, do you? or is it because your one of the higher earners who will be much better off after yesterday? Looks like someone has been brain washed by the ConLib gravy train press to me.
No, it's because I understand economics. Do you?

Do you have any idea what state the UK would be in if we didn't start making drastic cuts in spending a couple of years ago? Think Greece...

I'm not a fan of the Tories at all. They make some idiotic decisions, as do all parties. I am saying that Labour would probably do the same in terms of making cuts. Do you think Labour would do things differently?

The problem is a lot of people are so full of hatred for the Tories (often for good reason) that they rant and rave about their economic policy without thinking it through.
[quote][p][bold]The King of Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clacton Voice[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.[/p][/quote]Such a vacuous comment[/p][/quote]No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.[/p][/quote]Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing. Plus... "he doesn't want to upset businesses" Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue. "and the NHS has been ring-fenced" Good![/p][/quote]you don't really believe all of that, do you? or is it because your one of the higher earners who will be much better off after yesterday? Looks like someone has been brain washed by the ConLib gravy train press to me.[/p][/quote]No, it's because I understand economics. Do you? Do you have any idea what state the UK would be in if we didn't start making drastic cuts in spending a couple of years ago? Think Greece... I'm not a fan of the Tories at all. They make some idiotic decisions, as do all parties. I am saying that Labour would probably do the same in terms of making cuts. Do you think Labour would do things differently? The problem is a lot of people are so full of hatred for the Tories (often for good reason) that they rant and rave about their economic policy without thinking it through. cg1blue
  • Score: 1

10:57am Thu 20 Mar 14

The King of Colchester says...

cg1blue wrote:
The King of Colchester wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Clacton Voice wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.
Such a vacuous comment
No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.
Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing. Plus... "he doesn't want to upset businesses" Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue. "and the NHS has been ring-fenced" Good!
you don't really believe all of that, do you? or is it because your one of the higher earners who will be much better off after yesterday? Looks like someone has been brain washed by the ConLib gravy train press to me.
No, it's because I understand economics. Do you?

Do you have any idea what state the UK would be in if we didn't start making drastic cuts in spending a couple of years ago? Think Greece...

I'm not a fan of the Tories at all. They make some idiotic decisions, as do all parties. I am saying that Labour would probably do the same in terms of making cuts. Do you think Labour would do things differently?

The problem is a lot of people are so full of hatred for the Tories (often for good reason) that they rant and rave about their economic policy without thinking it through.
Greece is a terrible example to quote. For a start, they cooked the books!
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The King of Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clacton Voice[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.[/p][/quote]Such a vacuous comment[/p][/quote]No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.[/p][/quote]Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing. Plus... "he doesn't want to upset businesses" Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue. "and the NHS has been ring-fenced" Good![/p][/quote]you don't really believe all of that, do you? or is it because your one of the higher earners who will be much better off after yesterday? Looks like someone has been brain washed by the ConLib gravy train press to me.[/p][/quote]No, it's because I understand economics. Do you? Do you have any idea what state the UK would be in if we didn't start making drastic cuts in spending a couple of years ago? Think Greece... I'm not a fan of the Tories at all. They make some idiotic decisions, as do all parties. I am saying that Labour would probably do the same in terms of making cuts. Do you think Labour would do things differently? The problem is a lot of people are so full of hatred for the Tories (often for good reason) that they rant and rave about their economic policy without thinking it through.[/p][/quote]Greece is a terrible example to quote. For a start, they cooked the books! The King of Colchester
  • Score: 1

11:52am Thu 20 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

The King of Colchester wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
The King of Colchester wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Clacton Voice wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.
Such a vacuous comment
No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.
Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing. Plus... "he doesn't want to upset businesses" Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue. "and the NHS has been ring-fenced" Good!
you don't really believe all of that, do you? or is it because your one of the higher earners who will be much better off after yesterday? Looks like someone has been brain washed by the ConLib gravy train press to me.
No, it's because I understand economics. Do you? Do you have any idea what state the UK would be in if we didn't start making drastic cuts in spending a couple of years ago? Think Greece... I'm not a fan of the Tories at all. They make some idiotic decisions, as do all parties. I am saying that Labour would probably do the same in terms of making cuts. Do you think Labour would do things differently? The problem is a lot of people are so full of hatred for the Tories (often for good reason) that they rant and rave about their economic policy without thinking it through.
Greece is a terrible example to quote. For a start, they cooked the books!
The Greece example was used to describe the economic state they ended up in, not how they got there. Their enormous and uncontrollable debts left the country in absolute poverty.
If the UK did not get a grip on the spending / debt problem we'd have much bigger issues than the (relatively small) public services and benefit cuts to worry about.
Anyway, and getting back to the subject matter, I still think cuts could be made in other areas such as councillors expenses rather than targetting lollipop ladies / men and the like....
[quote][p][bold]The King of Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The King of Colchester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clacton Voice[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory, this is what happens.[/p][/quote]Such a vacuous comment[/p][/quote]No, it isn't! Today, George Osborne is going to announce a further £25bn of cuts, which will mainly come from the public sector because he doesn't want to upset businesses and the NHS has been ring-fenced. You can expect more cuts like this plus more including to your local Council's front line and it will continue until at least 2017.[/p][/quote]Sadly cuts are necessary to tackle the huge debts this country has racked up. My point is that if Labour were in government they would also be making cuts. It's not a Torie thing. Plus... "he doesn't want to upset businesses" Helping businesses thrive should boost the economy, reduce unemployment and eventually lead to investment in public services rather than cuts. Many small businesses are just about keeping their heads above water. Penalise them too much and we'll have even more boarded up shop fronts and people on the dole queue. "and the NHS has been ring-fenced" Good![/p][/quote]you don't really believe all of that, do you? or is it because your one of the higher earners who will be much better off after yesterday? Looks like someone has been brain washed by the ConLib gravy train press to me.[/p][/quote]No, it's because I understand economics. Do you? Do you have any idea what state the UK would be in if we didn't start making drastic cuts in spending a couple of years ago? Think Greece... I'm not a fan of the Tories at all. They make some idiotic decisions, as do all parties. I am saying that Labour would probably do the same in terms of making cuts. Do you think Labour would do things differently? The problem is a lot of people are so full of hatred for the Tories (often for good reason) that they rant and rave about their economic policy without thinking it through.[/p][/quote]Greece is a terrible example to quote. For a start, they cooked the books![/p][/quote]The Greece example was used to describe the economic state they ended up in, not how they got there. Their enormous and uncontrollable debts left the country in absolute poverty. If the UK did not get a grip on the spending / debt problem we'd have much bigger issues than the (relatively small) public services and benefit cuts to worry about. Anyway, and getting back to the subject matter, I still think cuts could be made in other areas such as councillors expenses rather than targetting lollipop ladies / men and the like.... cg1blue
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree