what do you expect for free?

PasturesNew

Can we get back to free stuff? You've all gone intellectual now and I don't know anything about intellectual stuff.

ninky_2

PasturesNew wrote: »

Can we get back to free stuff? You've all gone intellectual now and I don't know anything about intellectual stuff.

sorry PN....yes back in the real world.....must remember to check back in.

ceridwen

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't expect them for free.....but I do expect them free at point of use: emergency services,emergency medical care, parks (whether small town parks/playgrounds or national parks), local roads, foot paths, access to ''public water''' like rivers and beaches in suitable places.

In teresting question I know there must be MANY more.....

I agree with all the above - and would add things like:

- fresh air to breathe (ie not full of car fumes etc)

- enough of a feeling of "space" everywhere (ie not having buildings as much "on top of each other" as many currently are - due to trying to cram too many buildings into the amount of land available), so plenty of open spaces and not having to crane my neck in some places to see sky (as many buildings are too high).

- silence!!!! (apart from natural noise - like birdsong, the weather, etc).

Hence one of my reasons for being very upset/angry as the overpopulation is steadily getting worse and all these (very necessary) free things are getting to be in shorter and shorter supply....:eek:

ninky_2

clearly the tories are trolling the forums for extreme rightwing ideas put forward by lefties because charging for your little ones to play in the public park is no longer harebrained ninky hyperbole.

"we aren't charging people to go to the park"......yet. just wait and see. i seem to remember it was pauline hanson (or some other rightwinger) who said of the aboriginal claims on uluru (ayers rock) "why give something to a people who have had it for ten thousand years and failed to get it to turn a profit"

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/05/tory-wandsworth-councils-to-charge-kids-to-play/

Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council is planning to charge children £2.50 each to use Battersea Park adventure playground at weekends. If the pilot is successful, it will be extended to weekdays in the school holidays.
Tonight, Tory cabinet member for Education and Children’s Services Kathy Tracey defended the plans – while admitting it won’t actually generate any money.
She told BBC London Radio:
“[It is] not budget saving, just a pilot to see if it affects usage… We have lowest rates in country – we have three adventure playgrounds and one of only authorities that do, we have invested £3 million in parks and playgrounds, battersea park has 3m visitors a year…
“Only because there hasn’t been a charge before. We aren’t charging people to go to the park. This is a separate facility that some children decided to go to.”

DexterA

ninky wrote: »

clearly the tories are trolling the forums for extreme rightwing ideas put forward by lefties because charging for your little ones to play in the public park is no longer hairbrained ninky hyperbole.

"we aren't charging people to go to the park"......yet. just wait and see. i seem to remember it was pauline hanson (or some other rightwinger) who said of the aboriginal claims on uluru (ayers rock) "why give something to a people who have had it for ten thousand years and failed to get it to turn a profit"

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/05/tory-wandsworth-councils-to-charge-kids-to-play/

Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council is planning to charge children £2.50 each to use Battersea Park adventure playground at weekends. If the pilot is successful, it will be extended to weekdays in the school holidays.
Tonight, Tory cabinet member for Education and Children’s Services Kathy Tracey defended the plans – while admitting it won’t actually generate any money.
She told BBC London Radio:
“[It is] not budget saving, just a pilot to see if it affects usage… We have lowest rates in country – we have three adventure playgrounds and one of only authorities that do, we have invested £3 million in parks and playgrounds, battersea park has 3m visitors a year…
“Only because there hasn’t been a charge before. We aren’t charging people to go to the park. This is a separate facility that some children decided to go to.”

It's stupid that they plan to charge people. If the council wants to earn revenue they should do what everyone else does, and put an expensive coffee shop next to the facilities - that way the payment is optional.

lostinrates

agree its not a good idea. Children playing outside physically should reduce social costs longterm if it gets them fit and active, I'd have thought?

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

agree its not a good idea. Children playing outside physically should reduce social costs longterm if it gets them fit and active, I'd have thought?

plus it's just fun. does absolutely everything have be valued in terms of money in / money out?

ninky_2

DexterA wrote: »

It's stupid that they plan to charge people. If the council wants to earn revenue they should do what everyone else does, and put an expensive coffee shop next to the facilities - that way the payment is optional.

battersea park already does this i believe. they also have the childrens zoo thing (charged for) and regularly hire out sections of the park for private events.

ceridwen

Errr...they wouldnt - would they? - ie visions of the Government now wondering whether they could get away with charging peeps just to walk through and/or sit in OUR parks? (I emphasis the word "OUR" here.....).:eek:

Well - if they want a bit more "vandalism" of public buildings - then they would be going about it exactly the right way to get just that...ie if they tried to charge us for access to our free (and very necessary!) leisure facilities.

Even the best-tempered/mildest of us might just think "I intend to go for a free walk/sit in my local park - and THEY arent letting me any more" and reach for something to "vandalise" somewhere nearby in anger/protest...

It honestly is the case that the only way that quite a large number of people cope with being cooped up in urban (and steadily expanding into an even greater "sea of concrete" areas) is the knowledge that at least we can access our public parks and the like freely to help compensate for being so "hemmed in" by concrete as this...

MESSAGE TO GOVERNMENT - take that away from us at your peril.

EDIT: I am now wondering whether Government (at any level - National or Local) now plans on being a bit more "pro active" at dealing with the way "travellers" are still currently being allowed to "get away with murder" at buying or simply grabbing land to settle on - and, with that, those of us who are really struggling to survive in urban areas dont have the fallback position of "I could always move to the country if I cant stand it any longer" - because we are still currently at risk of travellers grabbing a bit of land besides us and Government taking months/if ever to get rid of them.

How to feel "surrounded" on every side....ie threatened lower access to "natural" recreational facilities in "urban" areas on the one hand...whilst not daring to move to the "countryside proper" on the other hand in case travellers were able to "set up shop" next door....

Thinks I know where the phrase "Between the devil and the deep blue sea" comes from...

ninky_2

ceridwen wrote: »

Errr...they wouldnt - would they? - ie visions of the Government now wondering whether they could get away with charging peeps just to walk through and/or sit in OUR parks? (I emphasis the word "OUR" here.....).:eek:

Well - if they want a bit more "vandalism" of public buildings - then they would be going about it exactly the right way to get just that...ie if they tried to charge us for access to our free (and very necessary!) leisure facilities.

Even the best-tempered/mildest of us might just think "I intend to go for a free walk/sit in my local park - and THEY arent letting me any more" and reach for something to "vandalise" somewhere nearby in anger/protest...

this was sort of what i was getting at with the OP. i suspect think there are things we currently get for free that in future we will have to pay for. the charges will start slowly and subtly and then, like parking outside your house, it will become the norm to pay. whether that is right or wrong is a different issue.

i think the following will be charged for access in one way or another in future - beaches, parks, footpaths, woodland.

none of these things are totally free to provide so i can see an argument being made to charge for them.