Trigg it's £30 per hour not £50. That's not meant to demean your article one jot. I totally agree with you.
All public buildings should be for public use not just the few who attend the establishment. That goes for the new academies in my book. There are a lot of mixed feelings about these new establishments being run by private companies and not responsible to the local council. The people involved with them can set the salaries of the staff to whatever they decide is appropriate. From what I can gather the money comes from the government, which as we all know , means the taxpayers.
The Chancellor of the exchequer said that he was uinaware that most multi millionairs pay less than 10% of their earnings in tax, so that means you guys who basically are employed, will fund them and yet your kids won't be able to use the facilities unless they happen to go to that establishment.
It's starting to occur all over, my grandson attends Karate lessons and his parents pay around £20 per week for his lessons. The club now faces moving because their charges are going up to a price that they can no longer afford to pay the rent. The swimming baths in the same school are also closing to a swimming club for the same reason.
The problem is that there aren't the buildings to facilitate these clubs. So in essence the goverment, not the councils, are causing these problems and denying the young people of the country, not just Bolton of taking part in leisure activities.
When the kids get too fat to move because of lack of exercise, will they realise that they themselves are partly to blame? There's not a cat in hells chance of that happening.
Someone needs to start an on-line petition to have this matter debated in Parliment.(I am resident in Spain so it's not possible for me) Come on trigg, get it started.
I read that article and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I use to live in Breightmet about 6 years ago.
The site that is being demolished is on Greenroyd Avenue, I have no idea what is being demolished and moving to a new state of the art building but it isn't the former Withins school site (now St Catherines academy) or the sports centre as that is on Newby Road.
I know the Sports centre closed to the community last Sunday and I believe it has been taken over by the school. So I'm guessing the £30 is what the school is charging them to use there sports hall.
The only school I know on Greenroyd avenue is the old Top of Brow School, but thought that had been closed for years now.
SWIE - thanks for that response
il have a look at a petition when i have a better understanding of the background to it.
I agree with your point about obesity too, they will blame it on the parents or the children being lazy and reclusive...when in effect they have taken away one of the few sources of exercising and socialising they have...
£30 an hour.... and they only need 50 kids at 60p each, so that means they only need it for an hour.
I'm not being controversial but why can't the parents pay £1 instead of 60p? It's a lot cheaper than childcare per hour.
Thing is LH we don't know what that 60p an hour was covering. If it was simply the cost of renting the place then fair enough a rise to £1 an hour is affordable. If it was covering insurance, equipment etc then the rise is going to have to be larger.
I've not read the article as I'm on my phone at work but I think I'm with trig on this. The powers that be can't complain abiut child obesity on the one hand and yet at the same time allow things like this to happen.
largehat, I understand what you are saying. The fact is that the particular area that we are talking about is a council estate. I supose that a lot of the familes who live there are not the richest people in society. The article says that the increase is going up to £30 per hour, i would say that it's quite likely that the games go on for the normal 90 minutes plus half time. Add to that getting ready for the games and after game time to get ready to go home and I would say that the increase is quite a bit more than you are accounting for.
I for one wouldn't like to see only the ruich kids enjoying their sport or any other out of school activity.
My grandson has parents who are both in well paid employment so to some extent his parents won't feel the effect of the rise but that is not the issue, the Karate club he belongs to can't afford the rise and therefore they have to try to find new premises at an affordable price. It might be easy if there were lots of venues who could accommodate them but there aren't. This also goes for the Football clubs, swimming clubs and I suspect a whole host of other clubs that at present use school facilities.
It's just another way of privitisation and I don't care which colour of goverment that takes decissions like this, it's wrong in my eyes.
We have all seen the effect of privitisation with the utilities, done with the lie that it would create competition and therefore reduce bills. Well we are all aware of what happened. Public transport was privitisted, thank god I didn't need to catch a bus when I lived in the UK.
On that note you can compare public transport in Spain and see that there is a vast difference in cost.
I have to say it's symptomatic of the wonderful outlook in Cameron's BS (that's Big society by the way, not what it should really be standing for).
I have at one point lived on Greenroyd Ave and can honestly say that it was in desperate need of demolishing as it was the worst hive of deprived scratter kids and families this side of New Bury. If anywhere in Bolton needed this facility it was that area. Unfortunately as we see the government and council cuts taking affect we will see more of this. The areas that can afford least to lose facilities such as this are also the ones with the least amount of people who can be bothered to vote, write to their MP or happen to have a councillor in their social circle. Can anyone see this happening in Lostock or Bromley Cross? Of course not.
Bolton Councillors will do the same as they have always done at times like this, blame the central government cuts, throw their hands up in mock despair and all the while only going in to the town hall to work three days a week because they're doing work for at least one other private company on the side and sticking to their thirty five working weeks a year policy.
I doubt their golf clubs or tennis clubs are in any immediate danger of closing down. Or that the kids of councillors are going to be missing out in this way.
The consequences of deprived areas losing these projects and vital lifelines are wide ranging and nothing short of disastrous quite frankly. Kids in deprived areas left with time on their hands have only one route to follow and we see the consequences far too frequently with children left un-motivated, disenfranchised and disaffected to the point where criminality and just not giving a toss are the logical steps to come.
Short sighted, storing up problems for the future and getting everything Arris about face. That might just well be Bolton Council's new mission statement.
THC
I fully understand you comments and to a large part agree.... But "Kids in deprived areas left with time on their hands have only one route to follow" Does confuse me... Kids in nice areas need things to do, and I am spending a small fortune without government help to send my boy to Swimming, Beavers, Football etc etc etc.....
The increase in the budget won't affect cigarette demand, but it may affect lower priorities... Like paying to entertain a child...
Sorry if that sounds harsh, and maybe it is...
I had to play football either in the street or on a local industrial estate when I was a kid, all you need is a football. We'd leather the crap out of a 99p 'flyaway' ball, it'd last about 2 days before it burst.
Largehat - your point is bang on - we used to play with a bottle top in school, they where brilliant, i used to be a goalie when i was a kid, god saving a bottle top doesnt half hone your skills lol.
The main point is however, the government cannot afford to keep these open, they are not cheap to run. If they have been sold to private enterprises, and charge £60 an hour, or whatever, if that price is too much, nobody will go, and it will ultimately close.
The reality is, a lot of children in these "deprived" areas are being brought up by kids themselves, and whilst most have the absolute best intentions for there child, they themselves where brought up in society of giving, where they potentially didn't have to earn everything they have, they where given it. There are off course circumstances etc and its unfair to generalise.
Ultimately, there are very few people who go without in this country, and the ones who do go without, if you filter out the ones who do deserve to go without, you are left with a small number of unfortunate folk, who are genuinely dealt a bad hand.
There is lads and girls club, which has great facilities
I doubt their golf clubs or tennis clubs are in any immediate danger of closing down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
i think you will find a lot of private enterprises are financially struggling, as the so called "wealthy" folk have re-aligned there priorities, not renewed there golf membership, and ise that money to....get to work.... pay for there childs entertainment..........pay for there shopping........etc. etc.
and please dont come the.... oh i feel sorry for them fuelling up there big BMW's and Mercs. They have earnt there BMW's, there nice cars, there golf memberships, there nice home. They also pay high levels of tax on there earnt income.
i really am sick of the attitude in this country, that if your "wealthy" you are bad, and bad for society and that you are taking this country to the cleaners. i am by no means wealthy, but god im working hard to get there, and if i do get there, i dont want to be dragged down by those who cant be azzed to try!
NSMB. Sadly true about the cigs but you can't deprive the kids for the sins of the parents.
Don't get me wrong, I hate people who have every intention of not working for a living and just taking.
When I was a kid my parents couldn't afford to buy me a decent pair of football boots, as a result I took up cross country running because I was ashamed of my kit. It reminds me of SKD, fortunately someone bought him a pair of boots. So you may realise the way I feel about deprived children being able to have the same facilities as your children, my children and now my grandchildren. Whatever we do we must not deprive the under privledged children. The kids should be looked after and in a caring society that is what should happen. Unfortunately The Conservaties are too busy knocking 5 pence off the top rate of tax payers and imploementing the so called Granny tax on pensioners.
Some things never chasnge.
One point I want to make is that I had a very loving childhood and there was always food on the table. Sometimes it's about priorities.
BWFCCLEGG, and along the way to your well earned wealth, you don't see it important to lend a helping hand were it may needed?
Don't get me wrong, I too wanted a better future for my family and myself and managed to retire at 55 but you make your own decissions on how you feel and what you do about people in need.
The PM has just been on TV regarding our multi millionairs paying 10% and in some cases up to 20% tax. We can all choose to go down that route but we all know it's not right.
clegg and largehat... hardcore Thatcherite's!
They can't afford the insurance these days due to "no win no fee" scu-mbags who claim if they trip over a cig end.
A lot of parks get their gates locked at 5 o clock these days when the parkie goes home.
Kids don't go out these days anyway because their parents think there's a pe-edo in every bush !!
il write a propper response when i can spend more time at my PC, however i take issue (respectfully) with clegg and larghat's view on it.
My parents are not short of a few bob and nor are my grandparents, not 'rich' by any standards but could afford a couple of holidays abroad every year, own a fairly nice house and fairly nice cars.
I, as an only child had everything I wanted and needed but I was never spoiled rotten - I was made to help occasionally round the house (washing cars, loading the washing machine, things like that) to 'earn' my weekends spending money.
I was brought up to learn the value of money and it paid off, I now own a decent enough car and my own house, I got a small amount of help with my deposit on my house but that was it - ive earned everything I have.
but I accept that, my life may have taken a different turn, maybe my parents would have been poor as some of my friends parents were and could not afford for me to do so many pleasurable things when I was younger - going to play football being one of them.
upping prices for these facilities is only going to rule out the kids that need it most - lower working class families who cant afford the extra few quid it will cost them a week!
anyone can sit on a high horse and quote 'when I was a lad we got some string and a satsuma on Christmas morning and made do with a bag of dog poo as a football so they can, I dont care because im now financially comfortable' but society as a whole has changed, we live in a consumer world were advertising and peer pressure play a much bigger part in our lives than they did years ago - the football games MAY be the only thing these kids do and the impact it MAY have on their lives is much bigger than we may imagine.
we all pay our council tax, PAYE and nat ins contributions to help this country be run...but the money is going to the wrong places im afraid.
They can't afford the insurance these days due to "no win no fee" scu-mbags who claim if they trip over a cig end.
.........................
Kids don't go out these days anyway because their parents think there's a pe-edo in every bush !!
...........
Back in large hats day they used to play bottle cap football with them in the park...kids are to soft these days! (i mean this is jest, obviously)
on a more positive note... this article has detracted a little bit from the usual 'coyle in/coyle out/we are rubbish/going down/staying up stuff we have all been doing recently.
I find it quite refreshing arguing about something different
Great, so because I simply asked why the parents can't pay £1 instead of 60p and pointed out that I didn't need to be member of a club to play football when I was a kid, I am a "Thatcherite", "on my high horse", and out of touch with consumer society.
You might find this a refreshing topic to argue about, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the same nonsense from you Trigger.
By the way - it sounds like your family was/is wealthier than mine, and I wasn't an only child either. Perhaps I should jump to the conclusion that you're a spoilt brat with a silver spoon in his gob. That would be no less fair than what you've said about me in this thread.
no largehat, I just dont live with this attitude that just becasue you and other people did things when you were younger because you were less well-off than some (i.e in the same boat as some of the families we are discussing on here) that others should be able to do the same.
It just seems a bit 'im not in that position anymore so I dont care' that's all. sorry if I came across as a little snappy...
I believe in investing in the future - young people are our future, children shouldn't be prevented from doing simple things like playing football if there parents can no longer afford it becasue our government have decided to try and make more money instead of trying to look after the poeple that need the most help.
i also agree with what the hate camel said - this would never happen in lostock or Bromley cross as they would be scared of the bigger backlash...
You won't find any councillor in favour of removing youth services. You probably won't find any poster on here in favour of removing youth services either. It's not a good guy v bad guy situation. There aren't any bad guys.
This situation, from what I can gather, has come about as an indirect result of a local school moving to a state of the art site.
That seems to be a much bigger gain for the children of that community than fewer than 50 kids not being able to have an organised kick about once a week. These are hard times, sometimes tough decisions have to be made.
I disagree with TheHateCamel's post. It's not a class issue. It's a finance issue. Involving money from the public purse. If there was a similar scheme in Bromley Cross it would be at the same risk.
If the government hadn't reduced the higher tax rate by 5p that would have probably paid for the genuine cases that couldn't afford any rise in fees. I forgot though, they have creative accountants who get them off with paying10% instead of 50%.
Seriously if these guys that earn multiples of 100s of 000s per year paid their dues, ther would be more money available to provide the facilities that are needed. That also goes for the massive corporations that legally get away with paying massive amounts of taxes. The sooner it's stopped the better.
What gets me about this government is that they seem to be making more cuts for the poorest members of our society. than the mega rich. I'm not against anybody making a fortune for themselves and I don't envy them, I would just like it to be a little bit fairer than it is.
Look whats happened to University cost. Very soon you will need very wealthy parents to be able to attend one of these institutions. I could go on but at the end of the day ity's a football forum, so mthis is my last post on the matter.
Sign in if you want to comment
yet another mess made by bolton council...
Page 1 of 3
posted on 10/4/12
Trigg it's £30 per hour not £50. That's not meant to demean your article one jot. I totally agree with you.
All public buildings should be for public use not just the few who attend the establishment. That goes for the new academies in my book. There are a lot of mixed feelings about these new establishments being run by private companies and not responsible to the local council. The people involved with them can set the salaries of the staff to whatever they decide is appropriate. From what I can gather the money comes from the government, which as we all know , means the taxpayers.
The Chancellor of the exchequer said that he was uinaware that most multi millionairs pay less than 10% of their earnings in tax, so that means you guys who basically are employed, will fund them and yet your kids won't be able to use the facilities unless they happen to go to that establishment.
It's starting to occur all over, my grandson attends Karate lessons and his parents pay around £20 per week for his lessons. The club now faces moving because their charges are going up to a price that they can no longer afford to pay the rent. The swimming baths in the same school are also closing to a swimming club for the same reason.
The problem is that there aren't the buildings to facilitate these clubs. So in essence the goverment, not the councils, are causing these problems and denying the young people of the country, not just Bolton of taking part in leisure activities.
When the kids get too fat to move because of lack of exercise, will they realise that they themselves are partly to blame? There's not a cat in hells chance of that happening.
Someone needs to start an on-line petition to have this matter debated in Parliment.(I am resident in Spain so it's not possible for me) Come on trigg, get it started.
posted on 10/4/12
I read that article and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I use to live in Breightmet about 6 years ago.
The site that is being demolished is on Greenroyd Avenue, I have no idea what is being demolished and moving to a new state of the art building but it isn't the former Withins school site (now St Catherines academy) or the sports centre as that is on Newby Road.
I know the Sports centre closed to the community last Sunday and I believe it has been taken over by the school. So I'm guessing the £30 is what the school is charging them to use there sports hall.
The only school I know on Greenroyd avenue is the old Top of Brow School, but thought that had been closed for years now.
posted on 10/4/12
SWIE - thanks for that response
il have a look at a petition when i have a better understanding of the background to it.
I agree with your point about obesity too, they will blame it on the parents or the children being lazy and reclusive...when in effect they have taken away one of the few sources of exercising and socialising they have...
posted on 10/4/12
£30 an hour.... and they only need 50 kids at 60p each, so that means they only need it for an hour.
I'm not being controversial but why can't the parents pay £1 instead of 60p? It's a lot cheaper than childcare per hour.
posted on 10/4/12
Thing is LH we don't know what that 60p an hour was covering. If it was simply the cost of renting the place then fair enough a rise to £1 an hour is affordable. If it was covering insurance, equipment etc then the rise is going to have to be larger.
I've not read the article as I'm on my phone at work but I think I'm with trig on this. The powers that be can't complain abiut child obesity on the one hand and yet at the same time allow things like this to happen.
posted on 10/4/12
largehat, I understand what you are saying. The fact is that the particular area that we are talking about is a council estate. I supose that a lot of the familes who live there are not the richest people in society. The article says that the increase is going up to £30 per hour, i would say that it's quite likely that the games go on for the normal 90 minutes plus half time. Add to that getting ready for the games and after game time to get ready to go home and I would say that the increase is quite a bit more than you are accounting for.
I for one wouldn't like to see only the ruich kids enjoying their sport or any other out of school activity.
My grandson has parents who are both in well paid employment so to some extent his parents won't feel the effect of the rise but that is not the issue, the Karate club he belongs to can't afford the rise and therefore they have to try to find new premises at an affordable price. It might be easy if there were lots of venues who could accommodate them but there aren't. This also goes for the Football clubs, swimming clubs and I suspect a whole host of other clubs that at present use school facilities.
It's just another way of privitisation and I don't care which colour of goverment that takes decissions like this, it's wrong in my eyes.
We have all seen the effect of privitisation with the utilities, done with the lie that it would create competition and therefore reduce bills. Well we are all aware of what happened. Public transport was privitisted, thank god I didn't need to catch a bus when I lived in the UK.
On that note you can compare public transport in Spain and see that there is a vast difference in cost.
posted on 10/4/12
I have to say it's symptomatic of the wonderful outlook in Cameron's BS (that's Big society by the way, not what it should really be standing for).
I have at one point lived on Greenroyd Ave and can honestly say that it was in desperate need of demolishing as it was the worst hive of deprived scratter kids and families this side of New Bury. If anywhere in Bolton needed this facility it was that area. Unfortunately as we see the government and council cuts taking affect we will see more of this. The areas that can afford least to lose facilities such as this are also the ones with the least amount of people who can be bothered to vote, write to their MP or happen to have a councillor in their social circle. Can anyone see this happening in Lostock or Bromley Cross? Of course not.
Bolton Councillors will do the same as they have always done at times like this, blame the central government cuts, throw their hands up in mock despair and all the while only going in to the town hall to work three days a week because they're doing work for at least one other private company on the side and sticking to their thirty five working weeks a year policy.
I doubt their golf clubs or tennis clubs are in any immediate danger of closing down. Or that the kids of councillors are going to be missing out in this way.
The consequences of deprived areas losing these projects and vital lifelines are wide ranging and nothing short of disastrous quite frankly. Kids in deprived areas left with time on their hands have only one route to follow and we see the consequences far too frequently with children left un-motivated, disenfranchised and disaffected to the point where criminality and just not giving a toss are the logical steps to come.
Short sighted, storing up problems for the future and getting everything Arris about face. That might just well be Bolton Council's new mission statement.
THC
posted on 10/4/12
Like mind HateCamel.
posted on 10/4/12
I fully understand you comments and to a large part agree.... But "Kids in deprived areas left with time on their hands have only one route to follow" Does confuse me... Kids in nice areas need things to do, and I am spending a small fortune without government help to send my boy to Swimming, Beavers, Football etc etc etc.....
The increase in the budget won't affect cigarette demand, but it may affect lower priorities... Like paying to entertain a child...
Sorry if that sounds harsh, and maybe it is...
posted on 10/4/12
I had to play football either in the street or on a local industrial estate when I was a kid, all you need is a football. We'd leather the crap out of a 99p 'flyaway' ball, it'd last about 2 days before it burst.
posted on 11/4/12
Largehat - your point is bang on - we used to play with a bottle top in school, they where brilliant, i used to be a goalie when i was a kid, god saving a bottle top doesnt half hone your skills lol.
The main point is however, the government cannot afford to keep these open, they are not cheap to run. If they have been sold to private enterprises, and charge £60 an hour, or whatever, if that price is too much, nobody will go, and it will ultimately close.
The reality is, a lot of children in these "deprived" areas are being brought up by kids themselves, and whilst most have the absolute best intentions for there child, they themselves where brought up in society of giving, where they potentially didn't have to earn everything they have, they where given it. There are off course circumstances etc and its unfair to generalise.
Ultimately, there are very few people who go without in this country, and the ones who do go without, if you filter out the ones who do deserve to go without, you are left with a small number of unfortunate folk, who are genuinely dealt a bad hand.
There is lads and girls club, which has great facilities
posted on 11/4/12
I doubt their golf clubs or tennis clubs are in any immediate danger of closing down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
i think you will find a lot of private enterprises are financially struggling, as the so called "wealthy" folk have re-aligned there priorities, not renewed there golf membership, and ise that money to....get to work.... pay for there childs entertainment..........pay for there shopping........etc. etc.
and please dont come the.... oh i feel sorry for them fuelling up there big BMW's and Mercs. They have earnt there BMW's, there nice cars, there golf memberships, there nice home. They also pay high levels of tax on there earnt income.
i really am sick of the attitude in this country, that if your "wealthy" you are bad, and bad for society and that you are taking this country to the cleaners. i am by no means wealthy, but god im working hard to get there, and if i do get there, i dont want to be dragged down by those who cant be azzed to try!
posted on 11/4/12
NSMB. Sadly true about the cigs but you can't deprive the kids for the sins of the parents.
Don't get me wrong, I hate people who have every intention of not working for a living and just taking.
When I was a kid my parents couldn't afford to buy me a decent pair of football boots, as a result I took up cross country running because I was ashamed of my kit. It reminds me of SKD, fortunately someone bought him a pair of boots. So you may realise the way I feel about deprived children being able to have the same facilities as your children, my children and now my grandchildren. Whatever we do we must not deprive the under privledged children. The kids should be looked after and in a caring society that is what should happen. Unfortunately The Conservaties are too busy knocking 5 pence off the top rate of tax payers and imploementing the so called Granny tax on pensioners.
Some things never chasnge.
One point I want to make is that I had a very loving childhood and there was always food on the table. Sometimes it's about priorities.
posted on 11/4/12
Sorry about the typos
posted on 11/4/12
BWFCCLEGG, and along the way to your well earned wealth, you don't see it important to lend a helping hand were it may needed?
Don't get me wrong, I too wanted a better future for my family and myself and managed to retire at 55 but you make your own decissions on how you feel and what you do about people in need.
The PM has just been on TV regarding our multi millionairs paying 10% and in some cases up to 20% tax. We can all choose to go down that route but we all know it's not right.
posted on 11/4/12
clegg and largehat... hardcore Thatcherite's!
posted on 11/4/12
They can't afford the insurance these days due to "no win no fee" scu-mbags who claim if they trip over a cig end.
A lot of parks get their gates locked at 5 o clock these days when the parkie goes home.
Kids don't go out these days anyway because their parents think there's a pe-edo in every bush !!
posted on 11/4/12
il write a propper response when i can spend more time at my PC, however i take issue (respectfully) with clegg and larghat's view on it.
My parents are not short of a few bob and nor are my grandparents, not 'rich' by any standards but could afford a couple of holidays abroad every year, own a fairly nice house and fairly nice cars.
I, as an only child had everything I wanted and needed but I was never spoiled rotten - I was made to help occasionally round the house (washing cars, loading the washing machine, things like that) to 'earn' my weekends spending money.
I was brought up to learn the value of money and it paid off, I now own a decent enough car and my own house, I got a small amount of help with my deposit on my house but that was it - ive earned everything I have.
but I accept that, my life may have taken a different turn, maybe my parents would have been poor as some of my friends parents were and could not afford for me to do so many pleasurable things when I was younger - going to play football being one of them.
upping prices for these facilities is only going to rule out the kids that need it most - lower working class families who cant afford the extra few quid it will cost them a week!
anyone can sit on a high horse and quote 'when I was a lad we got some string and a satsuma on Christmas morning and made do with a bag of dog poo as a football so they can, I dont care because im now financially comfortable' but society as a whole has changed, we live in a consumer world were advertising and peer pressure play a much bigger part in our lives than they did years ago - the football games MAY be the only thing these kids do and the impact it MAY have on their lives is much bigger than we may imagine.
we all pay our council tax, PAYE and nat ins contributions to help this country be run...but the money is going to the wrong places im afraid.
posted on 11/4/12
They can't afford the insurance these days due to "no win no fee" scu-mbags who claim if they trip over a cig end.
.........................
Kids don't go out these days anyway because their parents think there's a pe-edo in every bush !!
...........
Back in large hats day they used to play bottle cap football with them in the park...kids are to soft these days! (i mean this is jest, obviously)
posted on 11/4/12
*in jest
posted on 11/4/12
on a more positive note... this article has detracted a little bit from the usual 'coyle in/coyle out/we are rubbish/going down/staying up stuff we have all been doing recently.
I find it quite refreshing arguing about something different
posted on 11/4/12
Great, so because I simply asked why the parents can't pay £1 instead of 60p and pointed out that I didn't need to be member of a club to play football when I was a kid, I am a "Thatcherite", "on my high horse", and out of touch with consumer society.
You might find this a refreshing topic to argue about, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the same nonsense from you Trigger.
By the way - it sounds like your family was/is wealthier than mine, and I wasn't an only child either. Perhaps I should jump to the conclusion that you're a spoilt brat with a silver spoon in his gob. That would be no less fair than what you've said about me in this thread.
posted on 11/4/12
no largehat, I just dont live with this attitude that just becasue you and other people did things when you were younger because you were less well-off than some (i.e in the same boat as some of the families we are discussing on here) that others should be able to do the same.
It just seems a bit 'im not in that position anymore so I dont care' that's all. sorry if I came across as a little snappy...
I believe in investing in the future - young people are our future, children shouldn't be prevented from doing simple things like playing football if there parents can no longer afford it becasue our government have decided to try and make more money instead of trying to look after the poeple that need the most help.
i also agree with what the hate camel said - this would never happen in lostock or Bromley cross as they would be scared of the bigger backlash...
posted on 11/4/12
You won't find any councillor in favour of removing youth services. You probably won't find any poster on here in favour of removing youth services either. It's not a good guy v bad guy situation. There aren't any bad guys.
This situation, from what I can gather, has come about as an indirect result of a local school moving to a state of the art site.
That seems to be a much bigger gain for the children of that community than fewer than 50 kids not being able to have an organised kick about once a week. These are hard times, sometimes tough decisions have to be made.
I disagree with TheHateCamel's post. It's not a class issue. It's a finance issue. Involving money from the public purse. If there was a similar scheme in Bromley Cross it would be at the same risk.
posted on 11/4/12
If the government hadn't reduced the higher tax rate by 5p that would have probably paid for the genuine cases that couldn't afford any rise in fees. I forgot though, they have creative accountants who get them off with paying10% instead of 50%.
Seriously if these guys that earn multiples of 100s of 000s per year paid their dues, ther would be more money available to provide the facilities that are needed. That also goes for the massive corporations that legally get away with paying massive amounts of taxes. The sooner it's stopped the better.
What gets me about this government is that they seem to be making more cuts for the poorest members of our society. than the mega rich. I'm not against anybody making a fortune for themselves and I don't envy them, I would just like it to be a little bit fairer than it is.
Look whats happened to University cost. Very soon you will need very wealthy parents to be able to attend one of these institutions. I could go on but at the end of the day ity's a football forum, so mthis is my last post on the matter.
Page 1 of 3