Demo about lollipop people in East Dulwich (27th June)

[Townleygreen]

At last, some sense! Thank you Penguin68

[david_carnell]

I would suggest that each lollipop person is attached to a school crossing - which is why you see them outside of schools and not in the middle of random residential streets that children on their way to school still have to cross.

Therefore I do not think that non-state schools should benefit from this council-funded school-based service.

They (and the parents who have chosen to send their progeny there) have chosen to opt-out of society. For them, the public sector is not good enough. Fair enough. It is their money to do with as they see fit. I do not agree but will not seek to hector them here for those choices.

I would opine, however, that the schools could extend their duty of care to the road outside their school and pay for their own crossing patrol. This seems logical, and in this age of austerity, a sensible saving of council money that could be spent on other schools.

[Alan Medic]

Are you talking about yourself David? I certainly hope you weren't referring to another forum user. I understand that Dulwichmum is from a humble background. Nothing like the 'character' you may have seen here. However this is/was an issue worthy of attention as many others are which are raised here. You seemed to wish to turn this into a bullying exercise.

[Marmora Man]

They (and the parents who have chosen to send their progeny there) have chosen to opt-out of society

Our brief "meeting of minds" is over. Parents that opt for private education aren't "opting out of society" they are exercising a freedom of choice over where to spend their resources. As a generality, society (or more exactly successive government Department's of Education) have failed many many children by delivering sub standard education. Quite how you can describe a rational choice as "opting out of society" is beyond me.

[Loz]

They (and the parents who have chosen to send their progeny there) have chosen to opt-out of society. For them, the public sector is not good enough.

I laughed out loud when you called DM a pompous ass, but I think you can be called up on it to here. Where do you draw the line? Going private on dental (hard not to these days)? Being caught in possession of private medical insurance?

Like it or not, private schooling saves the government money. Like the child-free, private school parents have paid for a state education out of their taxes. However, these parent choose to pay again for a private education. Close all the private schools and the education budget will soar.

Calling it 'opting out of society' is just political dogma of the worst order.

[david_carnell]

I readily admit to being a pompous arse on occasion - but not here.

I'm not trying to turn this into as debate that's been done to death. All I'm trying to suggest is that by taking their time, interest and money to the private sector parents are investing those schools with a formidable duty of care of their children. I think this should extend to getting them across the road in front of the school.

In Southwark, where there are a large number of these schools as well as some of the poorest pockets of London, I don't think it's asking much for those schools to free up council resources by funding their own lollipop ladies.

[david_carnell]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> Are you talking about yourself David? I certainly

> hope you weren't referring to another forum user.

> I understand that Dulwichmum is from a humble

> background. Nothing like the 'character' you may

> have seen here. However this is/was an issue

> worthy of attention as many others are which are

> raised here. You seemed to wish to turn this into

> a bullying exercise.

Alan - I couldn't care if she's the daughter of Dick Van Dyke's chimney sweep. Her harping about ill-treatment and the flounce that followed was typical and tragic. The forum isn't run for her benefit despite what may have seemed like it a few years ago. I'd had enough.

[Otta]

I basically agree with David on this, in terms of the private schools contributing. However, to argue that it has anything to do with council tax is, as has already been said, not really valid, as private school parents also pay it. And we wouldn't stop the child of a person on benefits, who is council tax exempt, from benefitting from the lollipop lady.

[EDmummy]

Although of course, as we are reminded by the stonking big buses that sit outside Alleyns, a lot of the kids at the school don't actually live nearby and therefore, their parents don't pay council tax in Southwark!

[Karen135]

This issue cropped up in February when Lambeth terminated a number of lollipop/crossing patrol personnel/road safety officers. From what I remember, a number of the state schools had carried over a significant surplus of funds, one school having accumulated over ?200,000. It was put to these schools to contribute which I agree with to an extent. Southwark I understand has offered to train volunteers which I think does contribute to their road safety awareness initiative etc.

It may be a 'petty ?5000' per lollipop but this money can go to other resources, surely we all know that Southwark have been given a huge blow to their financial budget compared to other boroughs such as Richmond and we cannot expect Southwark to account for that particular sum in its future expenditure. Wouldn't it be great if the schools, state and/or private pooled together. I wonder if the schools have been contacted by the protesters?

[Fuschia]

Don't be misled by the emphasis on school balances

In most cases such funds are ringfenced grants or donations, parental deposits paid for trips or mOney set aside for ongoing building works etc

[Karenina75]

My daughter attends one of the aforementioned private schools, and fyi I do live locally and pay taxes. As it happens I am unable to walk her into school as I am going to work early to pay the fees. Grow up. The one thing that gives me peace of mind is knowing that there is an authority manning the crazy junction at east dulwich grove. The crossing is particularly subject to erratic driving in rush hour as it is very precarious for drivers, children and cyclists alike. If it is left unmanned it is only a matter of time before there is an accident.

Some of you need to get off your soapboxes....

[david_carnell]

Karenina - do you not think JAGS (I'm guessing this is your daughters school given you mention east Dulwich grove) should help pay towards a crossing attendant for their own pupils?

[Undisputedtruth]

Fuschia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't be misled by the emphasis on school

> balances

>

> In most cases such funds are ringfenced grants or

> donations, parental deposits paid for trips or

> mOney set aside for ongoing building works etc

Ever since LAAs came in a few years ago, local authorities no longer ring fenced nearly all of the money given by central government. The idea was to allow the LAs greater flexibility in tackling their own priorities rather than central government's. When Eric Pickles became SoS for DCLG last year he scrapped the LAAs that came with negotiated targets beween central and local governments. There are probably some ring fenced funding but I'm afraid my memory has failed me from recalling such information two years ago.

[Karenina75]

Charter school also use the crossing. Your tone in previous posts is very unnecessary and offensive. A lot of parents that choose private education nowadays are not wealthy, just normal working individuals. In answer to your question, no I do not think that JAGS [or Alleyns] should pay. We live in a community. I do not ask that I should receive tax relief because I opt out of the state schooling system....

[sahar00]

There is also an online petition on

www.ipetitions.com/petitions/lollipops

Please sign!

[Alan Medic]

This thread isn't run for your hate of DM be allowed express itself. Being one of admin's moderators you should know that the T&C's do not allow this sort of behaviour. Perhaps you will ban yourself? Goodness me, to use the term 'tragic' is pitiful and as for having 'had enough', well stop bloody posting then.

If anything is remotely tragic it's your subsequent arguements.

[Jeremy]

I'm struggling with the idea that private school pupils are somehow less entitled to publicly funded safety measures then state school pupils. All this stuff about "opting out of society" just stems from a personal disdain for private education... at the end of the day, private schools do not diminish the public purse.

IMO the state/private thing has nothing to do with the original post. But I still think that if the parents are so concerned, we could surely find 100 or so volunteers who can give up an hour a week.

[StraferJack]

Alan, I don't think anything has descended into hate - you're over egging the pudding here

regardless of the merits of the argument about lollipop ladies, Dulwichmum did behave like a "pompous arse."

She strated not one but two threads ALL WITH CAPITAL LETTERS WHICH AS SHE WELL KNOWS IS AGAINST FORUM RULES

When the threads got moved, instead of having a quiet word with admin or moderators (actually I'm assuming this as I don't know for sure) she started having hissy fits decrying teh whole forum, It was very spoilt behaviour. She hardly ever comes here anymore and when she she threw her toys out of the pram. When Admin responded publicly she hasn't bothered to reply

I do know DM in real life, I am aware of the difference between her persona and DM character and it's fair to say she wasn't in character at any point in this discussion. If someone is behaving like a pompous arse there is nothing to stop a moderator so saying. Conversely when David Carnell behaves like a pompous arse, plenty of people are liable to tell him as much too. That all seems fair to me, and without any "hate" as you put it

[James Barber]

Lollipop patrols are paid for from a ring fenced account of parking tickets, parking fee, parking permits charges minus costs of enforcement. Parking fees have just been nearly doubled, parking permits are going up on average by 26% and the costs of enforcement is being cut with a new contract. So the council has more money for lollipop patrols but has decided to cut them.

Savings ?50,000 per annum.

One road death costs the country ?1.5M.

All the crossings being cut are on roads greater than 20mph and adherence to the traffic lights very imperfect by drivers.

Apart from the eventual tragic human cost of death and injury this is a daft financial cut - at the same time ?9M a year is beign added to the reserves from revenue and another ?6M a year from capital. The councils unallocated reserves were ?21.2M at the start of this year and will end at over ?35M and increase at that rate for some years to come.

[DJKillaQueen]

The question is, if money is being saved from a ring fenced account....what is that money then in turn being spent on within that ringfenced account...or are you suggesting that the money saved is being taken out of the ringfenced account and added to the reserves James? An answer on that would be good and then people can decide if they think the use of the saved money has more priority than lollipop patrols on crossings that have traffic lights (which is where I believe the cuts are being made).

I personally have no view on lollipop patrols either way (I too saw voulunteers do that role when I was of school age) but an honest answer as to where the savings will be redirected would help.

[skyblue]

I can't understand the logic of this cut from a safety, community, and economic perspective.

Lollipop men/women often are older and the interaction between the generations is so lovely to see. (My kids love talking to Len on Barry Road.) It is the children who are at the sharp end of this cut. Nationally, Labour have rightly pointed out that we must ensure that the vunerable in our society are protected at this time. Yet this cut does the opposite and increases the possibility of an accident.

I'll happily redirect, my soon to be annual ?500 free school meal Labour voting incentive, to the lollipop people.

[Alan Medic]

Well SJ that was a long post to explain why DC's rant is perfectly acceptable. Regardless of the history involved, his post IMO displayed something close to hate if not hate itself. Maybe you should reread the post and try and be objective.

[StraferJack]

What can I tell you Alan - after your multiple posts on the subject I felt some balance was required

[Undisputedtruth]

skyblue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't understand the logic of this cut from a

> safety, community, and economic perspective.

>

Neither do I after reading Cllr Barber's interesting post and the cuts seems to be needless. I do understand the Council having to make tough choice due to cuts in their funding from central government but it appears the funding for lollipop personnel is not from central government or from our council tax.

Lets us not turn this thread into a class war. There is no need for it and certainly doesn't help the case for lollipop people.