Axe is set to fall on children's centres

Barnardo’s Robert Le Kyng Children’s Centre celebrating its 5th anniversary back in 2011. The building may now be adapted for community use

Barnardo’s Robert Le Kyng Children’s Centre celebrating its 5th anniversary back in 2011. The building may now be adapted for community use

First published in News Swindon Advertiser: Photograph of the Author by , @Michael_Benke

MORE than half of the town’s Children’s Centres are set to close as the council attempts to save almost £800,000.

A consultation with parents and staff is due to start later this month over plans which would see a reduction in the overall service in many areas of the town, as well as some possible job losses It is believed almost £17 million of savings need to be found in next year’s budget, which is why the plan is being put forward.

The centres at Penhill and Pinehurst, Moredon, Drove and Gorse Hill, which became a super cluster run by one company earlier this year, will remain untouched, as will the Parks and Walcot East centre at Goddard Park Academy.

These centres serve the highest proportion of vulnerable children and, as such, funding will remain the same.

However, all the others face being decommissioned, although some will be replaced by a new form of service.

At Abbey Meads and West Swindon it is proposed that new multi-generational family centres are established at 66 per cent of their current funding.

These would be operated by a co-ordinator, who would work with the community to run groups for children, parents and the elderly.

They would be able to charge groups or raise funds and it is anticipated that after two years these two centres would be self-sufficient so that council funding could be withdrawn.

Even with the new multi-generational centres, some areas of the town will be left short and parents may have to travel much further to access the services.

For example, those living in Old Town and East Wichel will be encouraged to travel to Drove Road following the closure at Croft while Eldene parents will be asked to go to Parks and Walcot East.

A part of the consultation would also look at possible community uses for the building currently being used by Robert Le Kyng and Highworth children’s centres.

Although the overall service would be reduced, there are set to be an extra 17 health visitors in the area by next year and extra funding is available for vulnerable three and four-year-olds to make sure they are ready for school.

It is expected the changes will have come into effect by April next year and will save the council £770,000, from an overall budget of £2.1 million.

The consultation will start on July 29 and run until the beginning of October.

Vows that vulnerable will still be protected

THE era of austerity is set to hit home for many parents across Swindon as cuts will mean the closure of a number of children’s centres.

Council bosses have said difficult decisions have to be made, but steps are being taken to ensure the most vulnerable children in Swindon will be protected.
However, they have been criticised by the opposition, who say many children will suffer as a result.

The cabinet member for children services, Coun Fionuala Foley (Con, Chiseldon and Lawn), said: “We are looking at finding up to £48m worth of savings over the next three years.

“Doing nothing about it is not an option and so difficult decisions have to be made. With this move I have made sure the most vulnerable children will be protected.

“The centres in the super cluster and Parks and Walcot are ring fenced. There will be no changes there.

“There are some areas where parents will have to travel further and for that I am sorry. But while it may be inconvenient they will still have access to a centre.

“We have had to look at the areas of need and prioritise where the service is needed. From a financial perspective, this is the hardest decision I have ever had to make.”

The move has been labelled as ‘appalling’ by the opposition, who feel it will have a negative impact on life chances. The Labour candidate for Swindon South Anne Snelgrove said: “The Conservatives’ appalling decision to halve the budget for Swindon’s Children’s Centres will affect the future of vulnerable children across Swindon for years to come.

“It means their life chances will be lessened as all studies show that intervening at an early age can break the cycle of deprivation in troubled families.

“Cutting another £770,000 from the Children's Centres budget means that early intervention cannot be delivered comprehensively in Swindon. I fail to see how the council will fulfil its duty to work with the most vulnerable children when most parents will live too far away from the remaining centres to make use of them.”

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:03am Thu 17 Jul 14

OldTown90 says...

Yet another example of where Foley goes folly follows?
Yet another example of where Foley goes folly follows? OldTown90
  • Score: 1

11:40am Thu 17 Jul 14

FLOGGITLAD says...

this is the council that lost £400,000, has given another £1.5 million in a contract(subsidy) to another firm, is given £3 million out to the leisure new leasehold agents which it has to borrow, and yes this is what you voted for happy.......
this is the council that lost £400,000, has given another £1.5 million in a contract(subsidy) to another firm, is given £3 million out to the leisure new leasehold agents which it has to borrow, and yes this is what you voted for happy....... FLOGGITLAD
  • Score: 3

12:12pm Thu 17 Jul 14

FLOGGITLAD says...

Is this cutback due to the £10 million they are paying on the council current debt??
Is this cutback due to the £10 million they are paying on the council current debt?? FLOGGITLAD
  • Score: 2

1:21pm Thu 17 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

FLOGGITLAD wrote:
this is the council that lost £400,000, has given another £1.5 million in a contract(subsidy) to another firm, is given £3 million out to the leisure new leasehold agents which it has to borrow, and yes this is what you voted for happy.......
Short memory comes to mind. the "other lot" nearly bankrupted the country and left a note saying there was no money so you seriously think they would do any better? That's why i don't bother to vote, because pretty much no one has a clue what or who they are actually voting for.
[quote][p][bold]FLOGGITLAD[/bold] wrote: this is the council that lost £400,000, has given another £1.5 million in a contract(subsidy) to another firm, is given £3 million out to the leisure new leasehold agents which it has to borrow, and yes this is what you voted for happy.......[/p][/quote]Short memory comes to mind. the "other lot" nearly bankrupted the country and left a note saying there was no money so you seriously think they would do any better? That's why i don't bother to vote, because pretty much no one has a clue what or who they are actually voting for. house on the hill
  • Score: 2

2:16pm Thu 17 Jul 14

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

I'll probably be lynched for this, and I guess I'm probably not their target "market" but I'm still not sure what these centres actually "do" that makes them worth the vast amounts of our money they consume. They've been around for quite a while now and claim to be essential for breaking the cycle of deprivation, and yet I see no end to deprivation in certain parts of the town, or even any improvement. What have they actually done that has been successful? Time to try something different perhaps?
I'll probably be lynched for this, and I guess I'm probably not their target "market" but I'm still not sure what these centres actually "do" that makes them worth the vast amounts of our money they consume. They've been around for quite a while now and claim to be essential for breaking the cycle of deprivation, and yet I see no end to deprivation in certain parts of the town, or even any improvement. What have they actually done that has been successful? Time to try something different perhaps? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 4

2:22pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Yet more Tory cuts. 👎 as usual the vulnerable suffer
Yet more Tory cuts. 👎 as usual the vulnerable suffer Davey Gravey
  • Score: -3

3:27pm Thu 17 Jul 14

trustnopolitician says...

"Short memory comes to mind. the "other lot" nearly bankrupted the country "

Pure Fiction - oit was the greed of bankers which initiated the world wide financial crisis. But never mind the bankers are being looked after by their mates in Downing Street.

You don't have to believe the propaganda - but when you you reflect the sheep attitude in following what the Daily Mail , Sun and otheres mis report.
"Short memory comes to mind. the "other lot" nearly bankrupted the country " Pure Fiction - oit was the greed of bankers which initiated the world wide financial crisis. But never mind the bankers are being looked after by their mates in Downing Street. You don't have to believe the propaganda - but when you you reflect the sheep attitude in following what the Daily Mail , Sun and otheres mis report. trustnopolitician
  • Score: -6

4:17pm Thu 17 Jul 14

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

trustnopolitician wrote:
"Short memory comes to mind. the "other lot" nearly bankrupted the country "

Pure Fiction - oit was the greed of bankers which initiated the world wide financial crisis. But never mind the bankers are being looked after by their mates in Downing Street.

You don't have to believe the propaganda - but when you you reflect the sheep attitude in following what the Daily Mail , Sun and otheres mis report.
Funny how you state others don't have to believe "pure fiction" propaganda and then spout a bunch of "pure fiction" propaganda yourself. :)

The country is still spending more than it makes. That isn't fiction, that's fact. We have been doing that for many years. That's also a fact. And if as a country we continue to do that, sooner or later we will not be able to continue paying the interest on our national debt and those we owe the debt to will want to collect on it. That's also a fact by the way.

I'd suggest that this government hasn't actually gone anything like far enough with cuts. Despite all the "disastrous, deep, and harmful" cuts we've had so far the welfare bill is still rising.

The bankers did not "initiate the worldwide financial crisis" - they were one link in a chain and are a convenient scape goat for governments, business and individuals the world over who spent more money than they could ever pay back.
[quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote: "Short memory comes to mind. the "other lot" nearly bankrupted the country " Pure Fiction - oit was the greed of bankers which initiated the world wide financial crisis. But never mind the bankers are being looked after by their mates in Downing Street. You don't have to believe the propaganda - but when you you reflect the sheep attitude in following what the Daily Mail , Sun and otheres mis report.[/p][/quote]Funny how you state others don't have to believe "pure fiction" propaganda and then spout a bunch of "pure fiction" propaganda yourself. :) The country is still spending more than it makes. That isn't fiction, that's fact. We have been doing that for many years. That's also a fact. And if as a country we continue to do that, sooner or later we will not be able to continue paying the interest on our national debt and those we owe the debt to will want to collect on it. That's also a fact by the way. I'd suggest that this government hasn't actually gone anything like far enough with cuts. Despite all the "disastrous, deep, and harmful" cuts we've had so far the welfare bill is still rising. The bankers did not "initiate the worldwide financial crisis" - they were one link in a chain and are a convenient scape goat for governments, business and individuals the world over who spent more money than they could ever pay back. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 3

4:32pm Thu 17 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
trustnopolitician wrote:
"Short memory comes to mind. the "other lot" nearly bankrupted the country "

Pure Fiction - oit was the greed of bankers which initiated the world wide financial crisis. But never mind the bankers are being looked after by their mates in Downing Street.

You don't have to believe the propaganda - but when you you reflect the sheep attitude in following what the Daily Mail , Sun and otheres mis report.
Funny how you state others don't have to believe "pure fiction" propaganda and then spout a bunch of "pure fiction" propaganda yourself. :)

The country is still spending more than it makes. That isn't fiction, that's fact. We have been doing that for many years. That's also a fact. And if as a country we continue to do that, sooner or later we will not be able to continue paying the interest on our national debt and those we owe the debt to will want to collect on it. That's also a fact by the way.

I'd suggest that this government hasn't actually gone anything like far enough with cuts. Despite all the "disastrous, deep, and harmful" cuts we've had so far the welfare bill is still rising.

The bankers did not "initiate the worldwide financial crisis" - they were one link in a chain and are a convenient scape goat for governments, business and individuals the world over who spent more money than they could ever pay back.
Really good post and well said. But I am sure that the usual suspects won't let reality get in the way of a good political rant!
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote: "Short memory comes to mind. the "other lot" nearly bankrupted the country " Pure Fiction - oit was the greed of bankers which initiated the world wide financial crisis. But never mind the bankers are being looked after by their mates in Downing Street. You don't have to believe the propaganda - but when you you reflect the sheep attitude in following what the Daily Mail , Sun and otheres mis report.[/p][/quote]Funny how you state others don't have to believe "pure fiction" propaganda and then spout a bunch of "pure fiction" propaganda yourself. :) The country is still spending more than it makes. That isn't fiction, that's fact. We have been doing that for many years. That's also a fact. And if as a country we continue to do that, sooner or later we will not be able to continue paying the interest on our national debt and those we owe the debt to will want to collect on it. That's also a fact by the way. I'd suggest that this government hasn't actually gone anything like far enough with cuts. Despite all the "disastrous, deep, and harmful" cuts we've had so far the welfare bill is still rising. The bankers did not "initiate the worldwide financial crisis" - they were one link in a chain and are a convenient scape goat for governments, business and individuals the world over who spent more money than they could ever pay back.[/p][/quote]Really good post and well said. But I am sure that the usual suspects won't let reality get in the way of a good political rant! house on the hill
  • Score: 1

4:42pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Clippies says...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running! Clippies
  • Score: 4

4:54pm Thu 17 Jul 14

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

Clippies wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running!
I think you need to check your rocket science because I very much doubt the new green waste scheme is costing £17 million, which is what must be saved according to the article.
[quote][p][bold]Clippies[/bold] wrote: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running![/p][/quote]I think you need to check your rocket science because I very much doubt the new green waste scheme is costing £17 million, which is what must be saved according to the article. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: -1

5:08pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Clippies says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Clippies wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running!
I think you need to check your rocket science because I very much doubt the new green waste scheme is costing £17 million, which is what must be saved according to the article.
I suggest you re-read the article - it states: "MORE than half of the town’s Children’s Centres are set to close as the council attempts to save almost £800,000." It goes on to say: "A consultation with parents and staff is due to start later this month over plans which would see a reduction in the overall service in many areas of the town, as well as some possible job losses It is believed almost £17 million of savings need to be found in next year’s budget, which is why the plan is being put forward." But nowhere does it state these centres cost £17m to run. I do wonder where the other £16.2m is going to be saved (hopefully on the grossly overpaid councillors and their huge pensions - but I'm not holding my breath)...so much for freezing Council Tax again this year!
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clippies[/bold] wrote: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running![/p][/quote]I think you need to check your rocket science because I very much doubt the new green waste scheme is costing £17 million, which is what must be saved according to the article.[/p][/quote]I suggest you re-read the article - it states: "MORE than half of the town’s Children’s Centres are set to close as the council attempts to save almost £800,000." It goes on to say: "A consultation with parents and staff is due to start later this month over plans which would see a reduction in the overall service in many areas of the town, as well as some possible job losses It is believed almost £17 million of savings need to be found in next year’s budget, which is why the plan is being put forward." But nowhere does it state these centres cost £17m to run. I do wonder where the other £16.2m is going to be saved (hopefully on the grossly overpaid councillors and their huge pensions - but I'm not holding my breath)...so much for freezing Council Tax again this year! Clippies
  • Score: 3

5:17pm Thu 17 Jul 14

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

Clippies wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Clippies wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running!
I think you need to check your rocket science because I very much doubt the new green waste scheme is costing £17 million, which is what must be saved according to the article.
I suggest you re-read the article - it states: "MORE than half of the town’s Children’s Centres are set to close as the council attempts to save almost £800,000." It goes on to say: "A consultation with parents and staff is due to start later this month over plans which would see a reduction in the overall service in many areas of the town, as well as some possible job losses It is believed almost £17 million of savings need to be found in next year’s budget, which is why the plan is being put forward." But nowhere does it state these centres cost £17m to run. I do wonder where the other £16.2m is going to be saved (hopefully on the grossly overpaid councillors and their huge pensions - but I'm not holding my breath)...so much for freezing Council Tax again this year!
I don't need to re-read the article and I didn't say the centres cost 17m. You said there would be enough left over to keep other services running. Even if you believe that the green waste debacle has cost that £800,000 and we won't know that until the end of the current financial year), that isn't true - there's another 16 million of savings to be made regardless.

Grossly overpaid councillors? I have to say it'd take a lot more than what they get in allowances to get me to do the job they do. Still, one of your wishes will come true, I don't think they're allowed into the council pension schemes any more - just another way to discourage normal people from getting involved in the community. Soon (if not already) only rich people will be able to be involved in politics...
[quote][p][bold]Clippies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clippies[/bold] wrote: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running![/p][/quote]I think you need to check your rocket science because I very much doubt the new green waste scheme is costing £17 million, which is what must be saved according to the article.[/p][/quote]I suggest you re-read the article - it states: "MORE than half of the town’s Children’s Centres are set to close as the council attempts to save almost £800,000." It goes on to say: "A consultation with parents and staff is due to start later this month over plans which would see a reduction in the overall service in many areas of the town, as well as some possible job losses It is believed almost £17 million of savings need to be found in next year’s budget, which is why the plan is being put forward." But nowhere does it state these centres cost £17m to run. I do wonder where the other £16.2m is going to be saved (hopefully on the grossly overpaid councillors and their huge pensions - but I'm not holding my breath)...so much for freezing Council Tax again this year![/p][/quote]I don't need to re-read the article and I didn't say the centres cost 17m. You said there would be enough left over to keep other services running. Even if you believe that the green waste debacle has cost that £800,000 and we won't know that until the end of the current financial year), that isn't true - there's another 16 million of savings to be made regardless. Grossly overpaid councillors? I have to say it'd take a lot more than what they get in allowances to get me to do the job they do. Still, one of your wishes will come true, I don't think they're allowed into the council pension schemes any more - just another way to discourage normal people from getting involved in the community. Soon (if not already) only rich people will be able to be involved in politics... The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: -4

5:46pm Thu 17 Jul 14

beach1e says...

I wonder how many people that use these centres have a real need as opposed to those that just see it as yet another freebie that working people can pay for while they sit back and reap the rewards of being bone idle. I appreciate that there certainly are cases where there is a real need, but unfortunately today we have too many people that just cant be bothered and those people are an insult to those in genuine need of help .
I wonder how many people that use these centres have a real need as opposed to those that just see it as yet another freebie that working people can pay for while they sit back and reap the rewards of being bone idle. I appreciate that there certainly are cases where there is a real need, but unfortunately today we have too many people that just cant be bothered and those people are an insult to those in genuine need of help . beach1e
  • Score: 1

5:55pm Thu 17 Jul 14

candid friend says...

Money for dodgy schemes with businessmen.
Then rob the children.
marvellous.
Money for dodgy schemes with businessmen. Then rob the children. marvellous. candid friend
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Clippies says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Clippies wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Clippies wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running!
I think you need to check your rocket science because I very much doubt the new green waste scheme is costing £17 million, which is what must be saved according to the article.
I suggest you re-read the article - it states: "MORE than half of the town’s Children’s Centres are set to close as the council attempts to save almost £800,000." It goes on to say: "A consultation with parents and staff is due to start later this month over plans which would see a reduction in the overall service in many areas of the town, as well as some possible job losses It is believed almost £17 million of savings need to be found in next year’s budget, which is why the plan is being put forward." But nowhere does it state these centres cost £17m to run. I do wonder where the other £16.2m is going to be saved (hopefully on the grossly overpaid councillors and their huge pensions - but I'm not holding my breath)...so much for freezing Council Tax again this year!
I don't need to re-read the article and I didn't say the centres cost 17m. You said there would be enough left over to keep other services running. Even if you believe that the green waste debacle has cost that £800,000 and we won't know that until the end of the current financial year), that isn't true - there's another 16 million of savings to be made regardless.

Grossly overpaid councillors? I have to say it'd take a lot more than what they get in allowances to get me to do the job they do. Still, one of your wishes will come true, I don't think they're allowed into the council pension schemes any more - just another way to discourage normal people from getting involved in the community. Soon (if not already) only rich people will be able to be involved in politics...
With the figures the council have supplied on the green waste scheme it has cost am absolute minimum of £1.7m this year and has only brought in £400k, so running at a net loss of at least £1.3m. This figure is without the stop cost of a second site. Added to which the ongoing costs are higher than the service that served 100% of the community last year, despite only servicing just over 10% of the community this year. If you remember the council claimed this paid for service would save the tax payer £685k this year, so this service is currently running at over £2m over budget - or to put it another way 2.5% of the annual council tax income!
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clippies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clippies[/bold] wrote: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to workout had the council NOT brought in the new Green Waste Collection Service the Council would have enough money inthe kitty to keep ALL of these centres open and there would still be spare cash left over to keep other services running![/p][/quote]I think you need to check your rocket science because I very much doubt the new green waste scheme is costing £17 million, which is what must be saved according to the article.[/p][/quote]I suggest you re-read the article - it states: "MORE than half of the town’s Children’s Centres are set to close as the council attempts to save almost £800,000." It goes on to say: "A consultation with parents and staff is due to start later this month over plans which would see a reduction in the overall service in many areas of the town, as well as some possible job losses It is believed almost £17 million of savings need to be found in next year’s budget, which is why the plan is being put forward." But nowhere does it state these centres cost £17m to run. I do wonder where the other £16.2m is going to be saved (hopefully on the grossly overpaid councillors and their huge pensions - but I'm not holding my breath)...so much for freezing Council Tax again this year![/p][/quote]I don't need to re-read the article and I didn't say the centres cost 17m. You said there would be enough left over to keep other services running. Even if you believe that the green waste debacle has cost that £800,000 and we won't know that until the end of the current financial year), that isn't true - there's another 16 million of savings to be made regardless. Grossly overpaid councillors? I have to say it'd take a lot more than what they get in allowances to get me to do the job they do. Still, one of your wishes will come true, I don't think they're allowed into the council pension schemes any more - just another way to discourage normal people from getting involved in the community. Soon (if not already) only rich people will be able to be involved in politics...[/p][/quote]With the figures the council have supplied on the green waste scheme it has cost am absolute minimum of £1.7m this year and has only brought in £400k, so running at a net loss of at least £1.3m. This figure is without the stop cost of a second site. Added to which the ongoing costs are higher than the service that served 100% of the community last year, despite only servicing just over 10% of the community this year. If you remember the council claimed this paid for service would save the tax payer £685k this year, so this service is currently running at over £2m over budget - or to put it another way 2.5% of the annual council tax income! Clippies
  • Score: -1

9:14pm Thu 17 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

beach1e wrote:
I wonder how many people that use these centres have a real need as opposed to those that just see it as yet another freebie that working people can pay for while they sit back and reap the rewards of being bone idle. I appreciate that there certainly are cases where there is a real need, but unfortunately today we have too many people that just cant be bothered and those people are an insult to those in genuine need of help .
Not sure why you got the negative thumbs for that. Maybe too many can't deal with the harsh realities of life in Britain today. The welfare state is bankrupting the country and will only get worse as the adult social care skyrockets. Too many think they "deserve" things because they work and yet more than half of all adults take more from the state than they contribute and they think it's ok because rich people can afford it.

The council couldn't run a bun fight in a bakery as anyone who has worked in both the private and public sectors will tell you from first hand knowledge. About 20% do a good job and actually care and the rest just bumble along to retirement! dead wood with dead ideas and no drive or ideas of how business works because they have never worked anywhere else. Not going to change as the same people sitting in the same meeting recycling the same out of date ideas is wasting £millions every year. Doesn't matter which lot are in charge, they have no clue as is proven time and again.

There will be people who are in real need who will suffer because of this and because this and most other public sector departments have no clue and in reality don't care.
[quote][p][bold]beach1e[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many people that use these centres have a real need as opposed to those that just see it as yet another freebie that working people can pay for while they sit back and reap the rewards of being bone idle. I appreciate that there certainly are cases where there is a real need, but unfortunately today we have too many people that just cant be bothered and those people are an insult to those in genuine need of help .[/p][/quote]Not sure why you got the negative thumbs for that. Maybe too many can't deal with the harsh realities of life in Britain today. The welfare state is bankrupting the country and will only get worse as the adult social care skyrockets. Too many think they "deserve" things because they work and yet more than half of all adults take more from the state than they contribute and they think it's ok because rich people can afford it. The council couldn't run a bun fight in a bakery as anyone who has worked in both the private and public sectors will tell you from first hand knowledge. About 20% do a good job and actually care and the rest just bumble along to retirement! dead wood with dead ideas and no drive or ideas of how business works because they have never worked anywhere else. Not going to change as the same people sitting in the same meeting recycling the same out of date ideas is wasting £millions every year. Doesn't matter which lot are in charge, they have no clue as is proven time and again. There will be people who are in real need who will suffer because of this and because this and most other public sector departments have no clue and in reality don't care. house on the hill
  • Score: -2

8:23am Fri 18 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

It's a question of where the money the council does have available is actually used.

Keep these children's centres open... or pay for an app and some leaflets to try and persuade people who clearly don't want to use public transport to leave their expensive cars at home and travel on dirty, smelly buses.

Both cost roughly the same and one of them seems at least semi-worthwhile. So guess which one they're spending the money on...
It's a question of where the money the council does have available is actually used. Keep these children's centres open... or pay for an app and some leaflets to try and persuade people who clearly don't want to use public transport to leave their expensive cars at home and travel on dirty, smelly buses. Both cost roughly the same and one of them seems at least semi-worthwhile. So guess which one they're spending the money on... Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 1

9:46am Fri 18 Jul 14

FLOGGITLAD says...

all people on here should be very wary, the adver will print your real name if they feel the need to follow the current lot in council..
all people on here should be very wary, the adver will print your real name if they feel the need to follow the current lot in council.. FLOGGITLAD
  • Score: -1

10:57pm Fri 18 Jul 14

ukdaytona says...

beach1e wrote:
I wonder how many people that use these centres have a real need as opposed to those that just see it as yet another freebie that working people can pay for while they sit back and reap the rewards of being bone idle. I appreciate that there certainly are cases where there is a real need, but unfortunately today we have too many people that just cant be bothered and those people are an insult to those in genuine need of help .
MY 2yo disabled daughter uses these centers. No I dont work and yes i am living on benefits but before you have a go at me.....

I worked for 30 years since leaving school (im 46). My wife used to be the stay home parent and I worked until my wife passed away suddenly at the end of May and im sorry but 2 of these centres have been a god send in helping me to get my head round the benefits system and helping my children (4 & 2) to at least try to understand that mummy is in heaven.

Im sorry but if you have never used these centres then you have no idea what they provide and most of the families I have met, at least one of the parents work.
[quote][p][bold]beach1e[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many people that use these centres have a real need as opposed to those that just see it as yet another freebie that working people can pay for while they sit back and reap the rewards of being bone idle. I appreciate that there certainly are cases where there is a real need, but unfortunately today we have too many people that just cant be bothered and those people are an insult to those in genuine need of help .[/p][/quote]MY 2yo disabled daughter uses these centers. No I dont work and yes i am living on benefits but before you have a go at me..... I worked for 30 years since leaving school (im 46). My wife used to be the stay home parent and I worked until my wife passed away suddenly at the end of May and im sorry but 2 of these centres have been a god send in helping me to get my head round the benefits system and helping my children (4 & 2) to at least try to understand that mummy is in heaven. Im sorry but if you have never used these centres then you have no idea what they provide and most of the families I have met, at least one of the parents work. ukdaytona
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Fri 18 Jul 14

ukdaytona says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
It's a question of where the money the council does have available is actually used.

Keep these children's centres open... or pay for an app and some leaflets to try and persuade people who clearly don't want to use public transport to leave their expensive cars at home and travel on dirty, smelly buses.

Both cost roughly the same and one of them seems at least semi-worthwhile. So guess which one they're spending the money on...
With regards to public transport.....
I live in Parks Area of Swindon, we use Salt Way Ctr in West Swindon. By bus it is 3 buses and anything up to 2yrs. A small child in a wheelchair is shown no respect on a bus, some people do not move to allow you access to the wheelchair space, some bus drivers dont care, just pack em in.

If you have a child who is in pain and your then bouncing around on a bus for up to 2 hrs, and the same on the way home can you honestly say public transport is a real alternative to Private cars????
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: It's a question of where the money the council does have available is actually used. Keep these children's centres open... or pay for an app and some leaflets to try and persuade people who clearly don't want to use public transport to leave their expensive cars at home and travel on dirty, smelly buses. Both cost roughly the same and one of them seems at least semi-worthwhile. So guess which one they're spending the money on...[/p][/quote]With regards to public transport..... I live in Parks Area of Swindon, we use Salt Way Ctr in West Swindon. By bus it is 3 buses and anything up to 2yrs. A small child in a wheelchair is shown no respect on a bus, some people do not move to allow you access to the wheelchair space, some bus drivers dont care, just pack em in. If you have a child who is in pain and your then bouncing around on a bus for up to 2 hrs, and the same on the way home can you honestly say public transport is a real alternative to Private cars???? ukdaytona
  • Score: 0

11:09pm Fri 18 Jul 14

ukdaytona says...

ukdaytona wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
It's a question of where the money the council does have available is actually used.

Keep these children's centres open... or pay for an app and some leaflets to try and persuade people who clearly don't want to use public transport to leave their expensive cars at home and travel on dirty, smelly buses.

Both cost roughly the same and one of them seems at least semi-worthwhile. So guess which one they're spending the money on...
With regards to public transport.....
I live in Parks Area of Swindon, we use Salt Way Ctr in West Swindon. By bus it is 3 buses and anything up to 2yrs. A small child in a wheelchair is shown no respect on a bus, some people do not move to allow you access to the wheelchair space, some bus drivers dont care, just pack em in.

If you have a child who is in pain and your then bouncing around on a bus for up to 2 hrs, and the same on the way home can you honestly say public transport is a real alternative to Private cars????
With regards to public transport..... I live in Parks Area of Swindon, we use Salt Way Ctr in West Swindon. By bus it is 3 buses and anything up to 2yrs. A small child in a wheelchair is shown no respect on a bus, some people do not move to allow you access to the wheelchair space, some bus drivers dont care, just pack em in. If you have a child who is in pain and your then bouncing around on a bus for up to 2 hrs, and the same on the way home can you honestly say public transport is a real alternative to Private cars????


Obviously the 2yrs should be 2hrs - public transport isnt quite that bad
[quote][p][bold]ukdaytona[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: It's a question of where the money the council does have available is actually used. Keep these children's centres open... or pay for an app and some leaflets to try and persuade people who clearly don't want to use public transport to leave their expensive cars at home and travel on dirty, smelly buses. Both cost roughly the same and one of them seems at least semi-worthwhile. So guess which one they're spending the money on...[/p][/quote]With regards to public transport..... I live in Parks Area of Swindon, we use Salt Way Ctr in West Swindon. By bus it is 3 buses and anything up to 2yrs. A small child in a wheelchair is shown no respect on a bus, some people do not move to allow you access to the wheelchair space, some bus drivers dont care, just pack em in. If you have a child who is in pain and your then bouncing around on a bus for up to 2 hrs, and the same on the way home can you honestly say public transport is a real alternative to Private cars????[/p][/quote]With regards to public transport..... I live in Parks Area of Swindon, we use Salt Way Ctr in West Swindon. By bus it is 3 buses and anything up to 2yrs. A small child in a wheelchair is shown no respect on a bus, some people do not move to allow you access to the wheelchair space, some bus drivers dont care, just pack em in. If you have a child who is in pain and your then bouncing around on a bus for up to 2 hrs, and the same on the way home can you honestly say public transport is a real alternative to Private cars???? Obviously the 2yrs should be 2hrs - public transport isnt quite that bad ukdaytona
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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