Let's save the country some money.

lynzpower

I would love the DWP to come in and pay all my utility bills for me.

I presume they would do this for anyone unemployed, you know phoneline and calls to job agencies, internet, gas,electric.

Sorry but in this situation I can see increased appeal for working under the table.

pinkteapot

My husband has coeliac disease and so has to follow a gluten-free diet. He gets food supplied on prescription, which is considerably cheaper than buying it in the supermarket. I don't particularly object to the NHS providing staples like bread. But he gets biscuits on prescription. Biscuits! Why? NHS-funded junk food!

Speaking of junk food, in much the same way that you have to be over 18 to buy alcohol, you should have to be less than 20 stone to buy junk food.

FTBFun

Here's some excellent tips on how to save money:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2006/02/06/viz-best-ever-top-tips-115875-16670828/

Jimmy_31

mattcanary wrote: »

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

Yep im aware people work nights as i do this myself off and on.

I can honestly say i dont know one single student on my estate and i know 90% of the people on my estate.

The vast majority of people on my estate do not work and have never worked. These people have no reason to work, all the single mums have got a council house and all the fathers of these unwanted children get the council flats. Now add all the other free money they get on top of their free homes for life and you can see that there is no reason for them to lift a finger ever again.

You know when you get a pretty rough town and the council start putting the problem families into one area, thats the area i live in. When i was a young child it used to be a nice place to live but now all the older working residents have passed away and their homes have been given to drug dealers, thieves, and familys from hell its basically a 5hithole.

There are plenty of these type of estates dotted all over the country so just imagine how many billions of pounds are being wasted every year on complete and utter scum.

Hopefully these cuts will see a lot of them thrown out of their homes:)

shirlgirl2004

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find we're already saving the state a small fortune by not taking up school spaces. I don't see why we should have to pay for the privilege of a visit we don't want or need. Of course if the state want to give me the money they would have spent on books, teacher time, building maintenace, exams etc then I'll happily pay an inspection fee.

My children meet "officials" such as Drs why do they need an ex teacher judging them when so many teachers so a pretty poor job themselves?

lostinrates

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

I think you'll find we're already saving the state a small fortune by not taking up school spaces. I don't see why we should have to pay for the privilege of a visit we don't want or need. Of course if the state want to give me the money they would have spent on books, teacher time, building maintenace, exams etc then I'll happily pay an inspection fee.

My children meet "officials" such as Drs why do they need an ex teacher judging them when so many teachers so a pretty poor job themselves?

Perhaps the state should also give money back to those who don't have children, or those who privately educate?

I rather think its not the children who are being judged, but the level of teaching...so perhaps you? Perhaps they learn to be healthily sceptical, poud of their acheivment outside social norms and how to exercise manners. It might also help prepare them for test and interview situations in later life and to accept sometimes the person in a position of responsibilty ...e.g. a boss...is a nupty but going through the motions is sometimes a small part of life. Sometimes people who are in other positions f responsibility above or involving them in the future will also be people youor they view negatively.

The problem is, when you get defensive, especially with someone not arguing against your choices and who supports choice and variety in the social system, it starts to weaken the inividual case and strengthen the general case in the view of those less supportive of alternative education.

edit: for all that I agree with you that a lot of mainstream teaching sucks, its interesting that you make a negative generalisation against teachers but presume that its ok to make a generalisation positively about all home schoolers.

Graham_Devon

The kids wouldn't really care if someone came to visit. As suggested, they see other professionals without it emotionally scarring them. So I find it difficult to understand that argument.

It's all about the adults. It's all about the adults wanting control of a situation (hence homeschooling) which is no bad thing. But control can go to far. There is nothing to fear, unless you are letting your kids down in any way.

I'm sure we'd all like to stop the tax man looking at our tax records and income. But I can't suggest that I'm doing fine, therefore I should be excluded. I do my tax returns to the best of my knowledge, as requested, but that doesn't mean there may be something I have got wrong. Indeed I have before, and got money back.

SingleSue

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

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.:(

Should? As a 5 year old I could do so much more than just squiggle on a piece of paper (reading age of 11 at age 5) and I was never pushed into doing it....I just had an elder brother who was struggling and my mum had flash cards to help him, for a 2 and 3 year old me, I soaked it up like a sponge even though it was never mum's intention for me to learn them.

I had a thirst for knowledge, annoyingly so for my parents who had become quite used to my rather plodding (and probably normal) elder brother, I drove them absolutely crazy with my questions and when they could no longer answer them, they directed me to books for answers to my sometimes impossible questions to stop my tantrums in my quest for knowledge. Most children strop over a sweet, I would strop over information being denied :rotfl:

I am more of the view of a child learning at his or her own speed, so if you have a bright child who wants to learn more, then let them, encourage them. On the other side of the coin, a child who is slower learner, then support them but don't make them feel stupid.

I could never home school though, I just would not have the confidence in my teaching them the right things ready for the big wide world as adults....but that is just me and my circumstances.

Davesnave

lostinrates wrote: »

edit: for all that I agree with you that a lot of mainstream teaching sucks, its interesting that you make a negative generalisation against teachers but presume that its ok to make a generalisation positively about all home schoolers.

I'd agree here. It's not always the case that the teaching is 'bad',' either, but that the needs of the child cannot be fully met within the time/money/social constraints placed upon the staff & institutions.

In an attempt to put this thread back on track, I'd argue that £billions of educational improvements could be made, all for free, if parents shouldered more responsibility than they do. It's the lack of confidence Sue mentions that needs to change, because, regardless of one's opinions here, the kids are at home far more than they are in school. In many cases, however, it's a lack of interest too. (No, not you, Sue!;))

As a practical example, I'd cite my second child who was severely dyslexic. We could have demanded our 'rights' to more than the pathetic hour a week of individual tuition allocated, but inside knowledge/pragmatism suggested there was a better way. Working with the school, my DW put in the hundreds of hours required, besides holding down a job. It wasn't rocket science, just graft, and it paid off.

The above is a fairly extreme example, but around a third of children have some kind of special need which, if not met, comes back later to haunt society in the form of behaviour problems or just plain underachievement. The solution isn't necessarily to ditch the system and go independent, but to work with it, though I recognise that in some places, where social problems are particularly bad, that might seem much less attractive.

Davesnave

As another aside, may I also suggest that those council officials who use public money to check up on the use of agriculturally tied properties, be given something more productive to do? This snooping into people's private lives in their own homes is simply intolerable and produces nothing in the way of revenue for the public purse.

(Were this to happen, my net worth would probably increase by around £100k, but I assure readers that this has absolutely no bearing on the matter.:D)

< Hobby horse mode off> :rotfl: