Let's save the country some money.

Joe_Bloggs

Conrad suggested:-

BBC - why not follow the CH4 lead and have the news presenter read the weather.

Jeremys Paxman and Clarkson have a different perspective.
J_B.

Jimmy_31

lynzpower wrote: »

What does voluntary unemployed mean?

Did you know that voucher schemes are expensive to create and manage?

How would anyone who received the benefits as you state above pay for any bills, transport or printing postage or internet to job search?

:wall:

Voluntary unemployed is a term used round my way, it refers to the type of people who leave school and never ever work or spit out babies so they can find it easier to dodge work plus get a bonus on top.


For travel they would get a free bus pass so they could go to the local doctors, hospital, dentist, library and the local food stamp shop.
They could go to the job centre and apply for a job through them and the job centre would supply printing and postage material.

The only bills they would have would be the necessary ones like gas water and electric and so on and the state could pay this directly to the providers.

A scheme like this could be quite easy to set up and pay for itself in no time, unless we get the usual gang of idiots from the government setting it up and doing their usual (lets completely !!!! it up routine)

How many people do you think would decide to start working for a living and not sponging now that they have no free massive tellys, free beer, free cigs, free sky, free holidays, free cars and so on.

shirlgirl2004

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As a sidenote, shirlgirl. I've heard the argument before suggesting home visits won't do any good.

I've also asked in response what harm they will do to your children, especially if it means others, not matter how small the minority, get the chance to be heard, or seen.

To date, I haven't had a response. I've been told it would frighten the children, which I was abhorred by, as that suggested the children really were hidden away for any contact with people to scare them. To be wary is a natural reaction for children to strangers....but scared? Of course, that went down like a lead balloon.

So what harm would visits do, to the children....as this isn't about saving money.

I don't think my children would be frightened but I don't force my children to sit on the sofa and chat to strangers in their own home. If I had to do this it would make them feel uncomfortable in their own home and that is not a position I feel anyone should be placed in. When I take them to the local nursing home they chat to the staff, volunteers and residents but that is on their terms and they discuss things other than themselves (and their learning). Knowing that someone is going to come into your home to talk to you and find out how much you know would be nerve racking for anyone let alone a 5/6/7 etc year old.

As an aside I don't think a 5 year year old should be able to write any letters, make marks on a paper yes but form letters no. It has been proven that if we leave these skills until later then we learn them quicker. It's all rush, rush, rush in this country.:(

shirlgirl2004

lostinrates wrote: »

children less lucky than yours perhaps?

Do you really think so? There are far more children in school that are on the at risk registers. Do SS manage to protect them? No in many instances they don't. If there are concerns SS have the right to check anyway. Many children are unknown to the authorities (an estimated 20,000) so if I want to abuse my children then I could never send them to school and they remain unknown. Checking on all the parents that adore their children and home educate serves no purpose.

lostinrates

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

Do you really think so? There are far more children in school that are on the at risk registers. Do SS manage to protect them? No in many instances they don't. If there are concerns SS have the right to check anyway. Many children are unknown to the authorities (an estimated 20,000) so if I want to abuse my children then I could never send them to school and they remain unknown. Checking on all the parents that adore their children and home educate serves no purpose.

yes I really think so. FWIW I am not opposed to home ed, and had an unconventional (though mainly conventional school based) education myself, and think in many circumstances home ed can be a better alternative for individuals BUT I do find the ''don't look here'' attitude very worrying, and it would be that which made me uncomfortable and feel more than anything children and their home educators would benefit from positive experiences with ''officials'' as well as any risk of the more hysterical sort.

But I think your're right: this shouldn't have to cost the state much or anything: it could be paid for by the home educators, possibly at a rate better acheived through group application via a home educators network.

Graham_Devon

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

I don't think my children would be frightened but I don't force my children to sit on the sofa and chat to strangers in their own home. If I had to do this it would make them feel uncomfortable in their own home and that is not a position I feel anyone should be placed in. When I take them to the local nursing home they chat to the staff, volunteers and residents but that is on their terms and they discuss things other than themselves (and their learning). Knowing that someone is going to come into your home to talk to you and find out how much you know would be nerve racking for anyone let alone a 5/6/7 etc year old.

You describe it as some sort of test. As if some stranger is going to come into the home, sit the kids on the sofa and ask them to recite their times tables.

It's nothing to do with that at all and its been made quite clear that these vists would neither impose on, or hinder, the way you choose to educate your children, UNLESS it is deemed that the home schooling is inadequate for the childs needs. In which case, if everyones a great parent in homeschooling, and wants the best for their children, they'd do whats best for their children and take advice, or look at other routes.

It's asking to show evidence of what you, as a parent, have said the children are doing. It's asking you to show reference material, maybe stuff the kids have actually done, and most of all safeguarding the children in a variety of ways.

All home education groups seem to be able to do is suggest there is no evidence of welfare issues in homeschooling, so why should they be checked. But then how are you supposed to gain any evidence if you can't check and the children are sheltered from speaking to anyone trained on this type of thing.

Now, there is, obviously evidence of cases where homeschooling has been a cover up for abuse, illegal marriages and other illegal activities, but it's always too late.

It's not just abuse though. What about the parents who are simply no good at home schooling? Who looks out for the children?

We have to face up to the reality that there are a minority of cases where children are being used / abused / lacking social interaction / lacking education.

That minority is not small enough to simply allow it to continue happening because it upsets the personal wishes of some parents. Even if it's just one family out of all home educators. The children NEED a voice.

gizzie121

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not just abuse though. What about the parents who are simply no good at home schooling? Who looks out for the children?

We have to face up to the reality that there are a minority of cases where children are being used / abused / lacking social interaction / lacking education.

That minority is not small enough to simply allow it to continue happening because it upsets the personal wishes of some parents. Even if it's just one family out of all home educators. The children NEED a voice.

I hear your sentiment, but I'd rather ask the question, what about the teachers who are no good at teaching!!! There are plenty of them, and it all gets swept under the carpet at the perfectly manicured Ofsted visits.

Abused? Some children kill themselves because the bullying is so bad at school.

Lacking social interaction? Not that old chestnut again. Says who that they lack social interaction. You can't stop a teenager making friends and you can't stop a loner making them. You can pull them out of oppressive bullying situations that take place at school though, and there are loads of home ed groups, camps and socials where we meet up.

The children NEED a voice? I completely agree. Which is why I think all school children should be asked if they want to be at school. Which is why I don't understand why every decision that affects a schoolchild for 11 years is made without their consent or consultation.

They can only pee if they ask permission. Do you have to ask permission to pee? Permission to go and change a sanitary towel? Get real! Embarrassing or WHAT!


A home edded child is intrinsically involved in their education. What they want to learn, how they want to learn it. There are many ways to learn that are exciting and fun, as opposed to the drudgery that is at school.

My 13 year old daughter has decided this year, to sit some GCSE's next year. She decided this herself. She set herself her OWN timetable. She used to get up at 10 am, but now sets her alarm for 7.30. Starts at 8, and is done by 1. She is learning two musical instruments, read 6 novels on holiday in the first week and is a funny typical teenager into friends, facebook and fashion. By the way, she spent the first 3 years of home education from year 2 to year 6 PLAYING with her brother.

She is done by 1!!!! Free to purse other interests and spend time with friends.

THAT is giving a child a voice, and more importantly, a choice!

mattcanary

nearlynew wrote: »

Wouldn't it be nice if you could go down that route and pay less tax.

It would also mean that funding in the NHS would go down drastically. If you have health problems and thus are more likely to require help from the NHS, you wouldn't forego free treatment in return for lower taxes. Quite possibly the reverse would be true if you are healthy.

Meaning the people that pay for their own treatment are likely to not need help anyway so won't have to pay for any treatment.

The NHS still needs money to pay for their buildings, equipment, etc? And for emergencies that may arise (eg: accidents, unforeseen mass illnesses).

mattcanary

lynzpower wrote: »

Every scrap of government owned land should be turned into council accommodation asap where there is areas of high demand.

government is sitting on vacant sites from barracks, to closed down care homes to vacant housing.

The sooner it starts creating jobs then the sooner we can make money on these sites instead of paying for security & all the rest of it.

There should be large fines on developers who do not develop land when they have planning permission. Like a daily rate per unit that is not being built.

Agree with this. Norwich City Council have taken an average of 60+ days on average in the recent past to relet vacant council homes.

Of course, this pales into insignificance compared to how some councils leave hundreds of their homes empty. eg: Liverpool Metropolitan Council

mattcanary

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Stop giving the voluntary unemployed the actual money for their benefits, give them food stamps and a set of overalls as a clothing allowance. It aint half annoying watching all the spongers in the beer garden on a sunny day getting pi55ed off the back of the tax payer.

So all these people are unemployed and claiming unemployemnt benefit are they? Not every one works 9 to 5 you know, and some of these people you describe are bound to be students