Swindon AdvertiserKids will suffer if you close centres (From Swindon Advertiser)

Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us

Kids will suffer if you close centres

Swindon Advertiser: Michelle Bennett and Fran Holmes with their children Georgia, Joshua and Aoife Michelle Bennett and Fran Holmes with their children Georgia, Joshua and Aoife

PARENTS in North Swindon have hit out at council plans to close many of the town’s children’s centres, including the one at Abbey Meads.

If the proposal goes ahead, members of the council arehoping it will save almost £800,000 as they attempt to plug a £48m funding gap over the next three years.

As part of the proposal more than half the children’s centres will close, although the ones which work with the highest number of vulnerable youngsters will stay open.

A consultation will start later this month on the proposals but the idea is that Abbey Meads, along with West Swindon, becomes a ‘multi-generational’ facility which will run groups for people of all ages.

It will operate on two-thirds of the current funding for two years, after which it will have to source its own funding.

However, users of the centre say it provides a vital service and should not be taken away.

Fran Holmes, 24, of Haydon Wick, says she uses the centre regularly for her nine-week-old daughter Georgia.

“I have used it quite a few times in the last few months,” she said.

“I get Georgia weighed here and we come to a baby group.

“It is very convenient having it so close to home as it means I can walk here.

“If it was closed down I would still need somewhere to go so would have to travel a lot further.”

Michelle Bennett, 31, of Redhouse, has used the centre for three years, firstly with her three-year-old daughter Aoife and now with her 16-week-old son Joshua.

“This centre has been really useful and it would be a real shame it went,” she said.

“It is where the children get to meet a lot of their friends and socialise.

“There is nowhere else nearby so it will be very difficult for those who don’t have access to a car.”

Coun Fionuala Foley (Con, Chiseldon and Lawn), who is the cabinet member for children services, said: “This is not a decision which has been taken lightly and the centres helping the most vulnerable children will not be touched.

“As part of the consultation we are looking at turning Abbey Meads and West Swindon into multi-generational centres. These will have two years of guaranteed funding to cover the costs.

“A co-ordinator will be put in charge and they will go out into the community and find out what is needed most in the area.

“They will have the freedom to charge and raise excess funds.

“What we could see is the main services still being provided but on top of that there could be extra classes or groups available for parents.

“I have to balance budgets to ensure the council remains viable. Unfortunately this means making cuts.”

The consultation will be aimed at staff and users of the centres and will start on July 29.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:15am Fri 18 Jul 14

Al Smith says...

Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections?

Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.
Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections? Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option. Al Smith
  • Score: 3

11:25am Fri 18 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Children's centres to remain open... or leaflets to try and persuade people to leave their cars at home (while still paying tax on them) and use smelly, noisy buses instead.

Seems the council have decided the latter is the bigger priority.
Children's centres to remain open... or leaflets to try and persuade people to leave their cars at home (while still paying tax on them) and use smelly, noisy buses instead. Seems the council have decided the latter is the bigger priority. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 6

12:13pm Fri 18 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

Al Smith wrote:
Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections?

Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.
Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.
[quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections? Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.[/p][/quote]Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing. house on the hill
  • Score: 6

1:11pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Al Smith wrote:
Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections?

Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.
Completely agree. It's not surprising what the Tories are doing its hardly new as they destroyed a lot of things during the 80's and 90's. They are only doing what they usually do. People have to decide to either put up with it or vote then out.
[quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections? Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. It's not surprising what the Tories are doing its hardly new as they destroyed a lot of things during the 80's and 90's. They are only doing what they usually do. People have to decide to either put up with it or vote then out. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

1:20pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Lol that was quick Mr meddle.
Lol that was quick Mr meddle. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -2

1:20pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

house on the hill wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections?

Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.
Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.
It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want.

What it comes down to are priorities.

The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money.

That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections? Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.[/p][/quote]Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want. What it comes down to are priorities. The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money. That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 4

2:31pm Fri 18 Jul 14

swindondad says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections?

Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.
Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.
It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want.

What it comes down to are priorities.

The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money.

That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.
Sandor Clegane,

Well reasoned points will not make you many friends on the forum but if more people followed your example and though before they spoke / typed more might be achieved.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections? Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.[/p][/quote]Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want. What it comes down to are priorities. The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money. That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.[/p][/quote]Sandor Clegane, Well reasoned points will not make you many friends on the forum but if more people followed your example and though before they spoke / typed more might be achieved. swindondad
  • Score: 3

2:57pm Fri 18 Jul 14

trolley dolley says...

Has anyone asked about the staffing costs of these centres.

Could not volunteers from amongst the users be found to reduce paid staff numbers.

It is after all in the interest of all users to do what they can to keep things going.

I realise that this would not be very popular with the paid staff, but it would be of benefit to the children using the facilities.

Like all the council facilities, it is the wages bill that kills them off.
Has anyone asked about the staffing costs of these centres. Could not volunteers from amongst the users be found to reduce paid staff numbers. It is after all in the interest of all users to do what they can to keep things going. I realise that this would not be very popular with the paid staff, but it would be of benefit to the children using the facilities. Like all the council facilities, it is the wages bill that kills them off. trolley dolley
  • Score: 2

3:03pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

swindondad wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections?

Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.
Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.
It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want.

What it comes down to are priorities.

The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money.

That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.
Sandor Clegane,

Well reasoned points will not make you many friends on the forum but if more people followed your example and though before they spoke / typed more might be achieved.
Yeah, a truly great role model whose example should be followed.
Having multiple accounts on a local newspapers comments section, getting banned and meddling with the voting system. What a guy!
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections? Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.[/p][/quote]Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want. What it comes down to are priorities. The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money. That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.[/p][/quote]Sandor Clegane, Well reasoned points will not make you many friends on the forum but if more people followed your example and though before they spoke / typed more might be achieved.[/p][/quote]Yeah, a truly great role model whose example should be followed. Having multiple accounts on a local newspapers comments section, getting banned and meddling with the voting system. What a guy! Davey Gravey
  • Score: 1

4:23pm Fri 18 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
swindondad wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections?

Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.
Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.
It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want.

What it comes down to are priorities.

The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money.

That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.
Sandor Clegane,

Well reasoned points will not make you many friends on the forum but if more people followed your example and though before they spoke / typed more might be achieved.
Yeah, a truly great role model whose example should be followed.
Having multiple accounts on a local newspapers comments section, getting banned and meddling with the voting system. What a guy!
Pot, Kettle Black at all?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections? Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.[/p][/quote]Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want. What it comes down to are priorities. The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money. That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.[/p][/quote]Sandor Clegane, Well reasoned points will not make you many friends on the forum but if more people followed your example and though before they spoke / typed more might be achieved.[/p][/quote]Yeah, a truly great role model whose example should be followed. Having multiple accounts on a local newspapers comments section, getting banned and meddling with the voting system. What a guy![/p][/quote]Pot, Kettle Black at all? house on the hill
  • Score: 5

4:57pm Fri 18 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections?

Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.
Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.
It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want.

What it comes down to are priorities.

The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money.

That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.
Couldn't agree more that you will never have a system that pleases everyone. And likewise your statements about "Priorities". Everyone has different ones of those too so that would never work because people would never agree on what they were! Hence why we go round and round with different parties in control for a while and then back again.

It will never be perfect clearly but I do think it could be better. As for politics, all sides are as useless as each other as has been proved time and again every time they get the chance to run things, eventually they all mess up. Just have to make the best of a bad job and an imperfect world and just live your own life.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections? Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.[/p][/quote]Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want. What it comes down to are priorities. The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money. That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more that you will never have a system that pleases everyone. And likewise your statements about "Priorities". Everyone has different ones of those too so that would never work because people would never agree on what they were! Hence why we go round and round with different parties in control for a while and then back again. It will never be perfect clearly but I do think it could be better. As for politics, all sides are as useless as each other as has been proved time and again every time they get the chance to run things, eventually they all mess up. Just have to make the best of a bad job and an imperfect world and just live your own life. house on the hill
  • Score: 8

5:01pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Hmmmf says...

I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B Hmmmf
  • Score: 2

5:03pm Fri 18 Jul 14

ukdaytona says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Has anyone asked about the staffing costs of these centres.

Could not volunteers from amongst the users be found to reduce paid staff numbers.

It is after all in the interest of all users to do what they can to keep things going.

I realise that this would not be very popular with the paid staff, but it would be of benefit to the children using the facilities.

Like all the council facilities, it is the wages bill that kills them off.
Most of the staff are highly trained and qualified. My daughter uses the facilities at Salt Way centre, including seeing Consultants and Physiotherapy and speech and language. they are all CRB checked and cover other areas including the Hospital.

Are you seriously implying to let 'voulteers' do the work of these highly trained staff????
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Has anyone asked about the staffing costs of these centres. Could not volunteers from amongst the users be found to reduce paid staff numbers. It is after all in the interest of all users to do what they can to keep things going. I realise that this would not be very popular with the paid staff, but it would be of benefit to the children using the facilities. Like all the council facilities, it is the wages bill that kills them off.[/p][/quote]Most of the staff are highly trained and qualified. My daughter uses the facilities at Salt Way centre, including seeing Consultants and Physiotherapy and speech and language. they are all CRB checked and cover other areas including the Hospital. Are you seriously implying to let 'voulteers' do the work of these highly trained staff???? ukdaytona
  • Score: 2

5:06pm Fri 18 Jul 14

ukdaytona says...

Hmmmf wrote:
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres.

Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B[/p][/quote]They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres. Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places...... ukdaytona
  • Score: 3

5:18pm Fri 18 Jul 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres.

Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......
But if you need medical facilities surely you should be going to your GP? Either that or GP surgeries should be disbanded and all rationalised with one of these centres.

I can see no financial case for the duplication of services that your post seems to imply?
[quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B[/p][/quote]They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres. Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......[/p][/quote]But if you need medical facilities surely you should be going to your GP? Either that or GP surgeries should be disbanded and all rationalised with one of these centres. I can see no financial case for the duplication of services that your post seems to imply? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Fri 18 Jul 14

ukdaytona says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres.

Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......
But if you need medical facilities surely you should be going to your GP? Either that or GP surgeries should be disbanded and all rationalised with one of these centres.

I can see no financial case for the duplication of services that your post seems to imply?
So to have Pedeaiatric Consultants, trained Physiotherapists, etc in every drs surgeries would be cost effective ???
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B[/p][/quote]They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres. Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......[/p][/quote]But if you need medical facilities surely you should be going to your GP? Either that or GP surgeries should be disbanded and all rationalised with one of these centres. I can see no financial case for the duplication of services that your post seems to imply?[/p][/quote]So to have Pedeaiatric Consultants, trained Physiotherapists, etc in every drs surgeries would be cost effective ??? ukdaytona
  • Score: 1

5:48pm Fri 18 Jul 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ukdaytona wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres.

Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......
But if you need medical facilities surely you should be going to your GP? Either that or GP surgeries should be disbanded and all rationalised with one of these centres.

I can see no financial case for the duplication of services that your post seems to imply?
So to have Pedeaiatric Consultants, trained Physiotherapists, etc in every drs surgeries would be cost effective ???
No, but trained paediatric consultants, physiotherapists etc should be at the hospital and you should be referred to them by your GP. Who knows, then hospitals might actually have some staff available to treat patients and everything in hospitals wouldn't be so reliant on overpaid locums and contract staff.
[quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B[/p][/quote]They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres. Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......[/p][/quote]But if you need medical facilities surely you should be going to your GP? Either that or GP surgeries should be disbanded and all rationalised with one of these centres. I can see no financial case for the duplication of services that your post seems to imply?[/p][/quote]So to have Pedeaiatric Consultants, trained Physiotherapists, etc in every drs surgeries would be cost effective ???[/p][/quote]No, but trained paediatric consultants, physiotherapists etc should be at the hospital and you should be referred to them by your GP. Who knows, then hospitals might actually have some staff available to treat patients and everything in hospitals wouldn't be so reliant on overpaid locums and contract staff. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 5

5:51pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

Watching one person using different logins, attempting to big himself up by praising his own comments is being witness to a whole new level of sad.
Any money saved from closures will merely get wasted on the next vanity project
Score -327👎
Watching one person using different logins, attempting to big himself up by praising his own comments is being witness to a whole new level of sad. Any money saved from closures will merely get wasted on the next vanity project Score -327👎 Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: -2

6:44pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Hmmmf says...

ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres.

Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......
The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so.
Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps?
[quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B[/p][/quote]They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres. Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......[/p][/quote]The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so. Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps? Hmmmf
  • Score: 1

6:46pm Fri 18 Jul 14

ukdaytona says...

Hmmmf wrote:
ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres.

Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......
The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so.
Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps?
So lets close them, loose the expertise and see another generation of children suffer and loose out
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B[/p][/quote]They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres. Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......[/p][/quote]The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so. Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps?[/p][/quote]So lets close them, loose the expertise and see another generation of children suffer and loose out ukdaytona
  • Score: -3

6:53pm Fri 18 Jul 14

ukdaytona says...

Hmmmf wrote:
ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres.

Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......
The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so.
Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps?
So lets close them, loose the expertise and see another generation of children suffer and loose out. the centres are there to help parents, im guessing you have been lucky enough not to have to use these centres.

They also take some of the load off the hospitals and the crappy sized car park. You would have more frustrated motorists waiting even longer to park, missing appointments, causing more cost to the NHS....
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B[/p][/quote]They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres. Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......[/p][/quote]The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so. Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps?[/p][/quote]So lets close them, loose the expertise and see another generation of children suffer and loose out. the centres are there to help parents, im guessing you have been lucky enough not to have to use these centres. They also take some of the load off the hospitals and the crappy sized car park. You would have more frustrated motorists waiting even longer to park, missing appointments, causing more cost to the NHS.... ukdaytona
  • Score: 5

7:47pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
swindondad wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections?

Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.
Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.
It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want.

What it comes down to are priorities.

The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money.

That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.
Sandor Clegane,

Well reasoned points will not make you many friends on the forum but if more people followed your example and though before they spoke / typed more might be achieved.
Yeah, a truly great role model whose example should be followed.
Having multiple accounts on a local newspapers comments section, getting banned and meddling with the voting system. What a guy!
Pot, Kettle Black at all?
No. Not at all.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: Dare I ask but did these ladies bother to vote in the council elections? Politicians a much of a muchness but you still need to go out and vote for whoever happens to be the least worst option.[/p][/quote]Sadly most of the electorate don't agree with you with 2/3rds not bothering to vote. They are all as useless as each other and once elected can do pretty much anything they want and change everything you thought you were voting for. The system is broken and needs changing.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter what system you have, there will never be enough money to fund everything that every person may happen to want. What it comes down to are priorities. The really odd thing is that the usual suspects lambast the council for spending money and running a debt while at the same time lambasting them for making savings and not spending money. That's the problem with tribal politics, though, people just blindly lash out without thinking things through.[/p][/quote]Sandor Clegane, Well reasoned points will not make you many friends on the forum but if more people followed your example and though before they spoke / typed more might be achieved.[/p][/quote]Yeah, a truly great role model whose example should be followed. Having multiple accounts on a local newspapers comments section, getting banned and meddling with the voting system. What a guy![/p][/quote]Pot, Kettle Black at all?[/p][/quote]No. Not at all. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -3

3:13pm Sat 19 Jul 14

trolley dolley says...

Is there anyone out there who can answer my simple question.

"How much of the £800,000 of funding is taken by salaries."
Is there anyone out there who can answer my simple question. "How much of the £800,000 of funding is taken by salaries." trolley dolley
  • Score: 4

5:25pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Hmmmf says...

ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres.

Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......
The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so.
Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps?
So lets close them, loose the expertise and see another generation of children suffer and loose out. the centres are there to help parents, im guessing you have been lucky enough not to have to use these centres.

They also take some of the load off the hospitals and the crappy sized car park. You would have more frustrated motorists waiting even longer to park, missing appointments, causing more cost to the NHS....
If there is no evidence that the service benefits children, please explain how closing the service will cause 'a generation of children to suffer and loose out'.
Suffer how>? Lose out how? If the centres are there to help parents as you say, why aren't they called parent centres and funded from the Adult Social Care budget?
[quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B[/p][/quote]They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres. Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......[/p][/quote]The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so. Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps?[/p][/quote]So lets close them, loose the expertise and see another generation of children suffer and loose out. the centres are there to help parents, im guessing you have been lucky enough not to have to use these centres. They also take some of the load off the hospitals and the crappy sized car park. You would have more frustrated motorists waiting even longer to park, missing appointments, causing more cost to the NHS....[/p][/quote]If there is no evidence that the service benefits children, please explain how closing the service will cause 'a generation of children to suffer and loose out'. Suffer how>? Lose out how? If the centres are there to help parents as you say, why aren't they called parent centres and funded from the Adult Social Care budget? Hmmmf
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Sat 19 Jul 14

trolley dolley says...

Hmmmf wrote:
ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
ukdaytona wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B
They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres.

Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......
The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so.
Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps?
So lets close them, loose the expertise and see another generation of children suffer and loose out. the centres are there to help parents, im guessing you have been lucky enough not to have to use these centres.

They also take some of the load off the hospitals and the crappy sized car park. You would have more frustrated motorists waiting even longer to park, missing appointments, causing more cost to the NHS....
If there is no evidence that the service benefits children, please explain how closing the service will cause 'a generation of children to suffer and loose out'.
Suffer how>? Lose out how? If the centres are there to help parents as you say, why aren't they called parent centres and funded from the Adult Social Care budget?
The reason is that saying that children will suffer and calling them childrens centres is far more emotive and guaranteed to get a bigger response.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I found myself wondering what on earth parents did before children's centres, and how humans got by without them. As far as I know, there weren't such things when I was growing up. That led me to wondering when they were first conceived and why, and my search turned up this interesting article on children's centres from the BBC in 2011: http://goo.gl/2qME6B[/p][/quote]They are a single point of contact for many services and resources, including medical experts, that make it easier for parents and children, instead of going to several different places for different things, they are centrally located in the childrens centres. Look at them like supermarkets, you go do all your shopping in one place rather than 10 or 15 different places......[/p][/quote]The point being made in the article that I linked to is that while they may be convenient for parents, they were intended to help children, and there was no evidence that they were in fact doing so. Your post seems to uphold the view that these are, in fact, 'parent centres', and we're all paying simply to provide the convenience of the 'one stop medical shop' you're alluding to. On top of that we'll be paying £700k for another 23 health visitors, presumably to add another layer of convenience to parents, to extend your analogy, 'home delivery supermarkets' perhaps?[/p][/quote]So lets close them, loose the expertise and see another generation of children suffer and loose out. the centres are there to help parents, im guessing you have been lucky enough not to have to use these centres. They also take some of the load off the hospitals and the crappy sized car park. You would have more frustrated motorists waiting even longer to park, missing appointments, causing more cost to the NHS....[/p][/quote]If there is no evidence that the service benefits children, please explain how closing the service will cause 'a generation of children to suffer and loose out'. Suffer how>? Lose out how? If the centres are there to help parents as you say, why aren't they called parent centres and funded from the Adult Social Care budget?[/p][/quote]The reason is that saying that children will suffer and calling them childrens centres is far more emotive and guaranteed to get a bigger response. trolley dolley
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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