Public sector monster needs to be tamed

donaldtramp

And exactly whose taxes are paying the bonuses and pensions of all those bailed out PRIVATE SECTOR banks?

I absolutely agree with you, these leeches shouldn't be getting taxpayers money either.
Absolutely no argument there.
But I think you'll find if you scroll back a few posts(I can't be bothered to find it for you), I posted up the money given to the banking sector as a one off is much, much smaller than the cash doled out each and every year to the public sector/state handouts.
This doesn't even include the pension liabilities of nigh on one TRILLION pounds! The banks also have the ability to generate income and pay it back over the years, unlike public spending.

So what's your point ninky?

Oh and as for the "non story" in The Times. It was front page and with a readership of milions, it was obviously thought to be a worthy story!
Even the leftie Guardian is publishing these stories now!

macaque_2

ninky wrote: »

And exactly whose taxes are paying the bonuses and pensions of all those bailed out PRIVATE SECTOR banks?

If the FSA, the treasury or the BOE had been doing their jobs properly no bail outs would have been necessary. Perhaps the UK should hire Spanish regulators to sort the mess out.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

yes, but then i'm guessing you didn't grow up on a scottish council estate, eating deep fried everything three times a day.

No I didn't. Do you really think that seeing a fruit 'n' veg counsellor a couple of times whilst at primary school is going to reverse being fed deep fried food 3 times a day?

It's a classic piece of 'something must be done' politics.

Wookster wrote: »

What degree are you thinking of doing?

Not sure. Basically the plan is to get a job doing whatever I can and then doing something that will push my career along. If I get a job on the railways I'd either do a project management degree (masters perhaps?) or engineering.

If I can't get any decent job at all then I'll do law, to keep my brain occupied as much as anything else.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

No I didn't. Do you really think that seeing a fruit 'n' veg counsellor a couple of times whilst at primary school is going to reverse being fed deep fried food 3 times a day?

It's a classic piece of 'something must be done' politics.

no, i doubt it will make a blind bit of difference, but what do you suggest, leave them to their clogged artery fate? or are you of the tactical nuclear strike school? any proper solution would cost a lot of money - and you don't even want £12,000 spent on it.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no, i doubt it will make a blind bit of difference, but what do you suggest, leave them to their clogged artery fate? or are you of the tactical nuclear strike school? any proper solution would cost a lot of money - and you don't even want £12,000 spent on it.

If it's not going to make a blind bit of difference (as we appear to agree) then why waste the money? The reason this money is being spent is so that Gordon Brown can say, "We've spent £xx,xxx,xxx on ensuring that the most vunneruble in society get the help and advice they need to make the right healthy choices". It's money down the drain.

You'd be better spending twelve grand a year on apples and leaving them around schools for kids to eat.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

If it's not going to make a blind bit of difference (as we appear to agree) then why waste the money? The reason this money is being spent is so that Gordon Brown can say, "We've spent £xx,xxx,xxx on ensuring that the most vunneruble in society get the help and advice they need to make the right healthy choices". It's money down the drain.

You'd be better spending twelve grand a year on apples and leaving them around schools for kids to eat.

well, if their entire strategy consists of paying one person £12,000 a year to drool whilst holding an apple in front of some kids, then yes, it is £12,000 down the drain (although the idiot with the apple will just have to be paid £12,000 by a different part of government if they were unemployed anyway). hopefully they are doing somewhat more than paying an imbecile to do nothing.

anyway, it makes no difference to you or i what some council in scotland decides to do with the council tax it raises anyway. if it matters that much, let the locals rise up against their council and pitch-fork the lot of them.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well, if their entire strategy consists of paying one person £12,000 a year to drool whilst holding an apple in front of some kids, then yes, it is £12,000 down the drain (although the idiot with the apple will just have to be paid £12,000 by a different part of government if they were unemployed anyway). hopefully they are doing somewhat more than paying an imbecile to do nothing.

anyway, it makes no difference to you or i what some council in scotland decides to do with the council tax it raises anyway. if it matters that much, let the locals rise up against their council and pitch-fork the lot of them.

The trouble is there are thousands of these jobs up and down the UK and overall they cost a fortune.

baileysbattlebus

Generali wrote: »

I'll say the unsayable.

These are non-jobs that should not be funded by British taxpayers.

Everyone knows that you should eat fruit and veg. Some people do, others don't and that is their free choice. Having some idiot come to your kids' school and tell you how to peel an orange isn't going to acheive a thing. And I say some idiot because if you are paying twelve grand you aren't going to get the cream of the crop!

I would imagine that the fruit preparation assistant is actually boxing up the fruit for distrubution to the various schools

In England children aged 4 - 6 (reception class, year 1 & year 2 get fresh fruit daily when they are at school and have done for a number of years, at least where we live they do.

The fruit is delivered to the school boxed for each of the classes, at my grandson's school there are 6 classes that get issued fruit - someone has to box it.

They get the fruit mid morning in the class.

Do I begrudge paying someone to do that, no, I don't.

I think Scotland are introducing a similar scheme.

And yes I know it's upto the parent to educate their children about nutrition, but if the parents have been brought up on deep fried pies, deep fried pizzas and fish suppers (I lived in Scotland for a number of years, and saw things being cooked in the fish & chip shop that made me cringe) - they probably don't have much of an idea. But maybe if the kids are educated it might be better for their children.

Some children, through no fault of their own, may never have had some of the fruit & veg that gets offered in school, may not even have had breakfast, personally I think it's a good thing.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthimprovement/FiveADay/FiveADaygeneralinformation/DH_4002149

Wookster

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

And yes I know it's upto the parent to educate their children about nutrition, but if the parents have been brought up on deep fried pies, deep fried pizzas and fish suppers (I lived in Scotland for a number of years, and saw things being cooked in the fish & chip shop that made me cringe) - they probably don't have much of an idea. But maybe if the kids are educated it might be better for their children.

Some children, through no fault of their own, may never have had some of the fruit & veg that gets offered in school, may not even have had breakfast, personally I think it's a good thing.

It doesn't change a thing in children's behaviour though. I don't see why teachers can't do this as part of their teaching activities, or why schools don't feed children much healthier ala Jamie style.

This government just wants to keep throwing money at things and hope that its going to lift the most poor people out of poverty yet they are unwilling to make some of the real changes required to do so.

Generali

Wookster wrote: »

It doesn't change a thing in children's behaviour though. I don't see why teachers can't do this as part of their teaching activities, or why schools don't feed children much healthier ala Jamie style.

This government just wants to keep throwing money at things and hope that its going to lift the most poor people out of poverty yet they are unwilling to make some of the real changes required to do so.

TBH, I think they do it so on Question Time or on Party Political Broadcasts they can say, "We've spent £[a fcking fortune] on relieving xxx".

Who cares if it works or not so long as we get elected/re-elected.