Up to 80 per cent of day centres would shut under Buckinghamshire County Council plans (From Bucks Free Press)

What does BCC really do with our money???????????????
????????

The new Handy Cross Transport Hub will cost c£33,000,000, increase congestion and pollution and create the need for more subsidies to bus companies. The Sports Centre will be decimated. Spend themoney on the day centres and review the position when the current crisis has receeded

The new Handy Cross Transport Hub will cost c£33,000,000, increase congestion and pollution and create the need for more subsidies to bus companies. The Sports Centre will be decimated. Spend themoney on the day centres and review the position when the current crisis has receeded

Why not introduce euthanasia for anyone who is old or has learning disabilities?
~
it would make life such a lot easier for everyone else.
~
The council bosses are lucky that they will not need services like this. To those who use and need the services these centres provide a change of scenery, companionship and in some cases respite for their carers.
~
I notice that this article says "plans unveiled by councils chiefs today".
So that means that no well paid council chief or manager is actually brave enough to put their name to this idea or be the one to make the announcement.
~
What will happen to some of the buildings. Some, not all, are stand alone buildings. Will they be sold off to help pay for the high wages of the council managers and executives? More flats probabaly!
~
This is disgusting.
~
Save money now.
I am sure at least two or three of these centres could be spared and paid for by WDC if the money wasn't going into the black hole that is the "consultation" for the Hayes Stadium.
~
I hope that you're happy Steve. These are the sort of people that suffer when people like you con money out of the council. It could be used to help those with learning disabilities and the old and infirm - real people who need these fascilities.
~
I know that you don't care. your plan was to build your own castle with someone else's money.
~

So we are going back to the dark ages of hiding them away in Institutions (as technically that is the intention). Dealing with everyone as a whole rather than as individuals. Lovely, well done BCC once again you have no idea what you are on about and are going to balls it up again along with Swan Rider!

The Government have £17.4 Billion burning a hole in their pocket, which is going to be used to get people to Birmingham from London in 45 minutes instead of 2 horurs. Perhaps the money could be put to better use?

Malc London wrote:
The Government have £17.4 Billion burning a hole in their pocket, which is going to be used to get people to Birmingham from London in 45 minutes instead of 2 horurs. Perhaps the money could be put to better use?

I know a lot of older people and people with learning disabilities who would love a ride on a normal train.

BCC are deceitful in everything they do. They say in their consultations that service users have been asked and are happy for these changes to take place, well i can assure you that not one single service user in one of the centres facing the axe have been consulted! (I can't speak for the others, but I'm sure it follows the same pattern).

Unfortunately, services need to be withdrawn to ensure we live within our means. On the basis of the information provided, the service costs £8500 per user. Do we want to spend that sum of money per year on any one individual?

Can we eliminate the sensationalist rhertoric used by some of the commentators and discuss what is affordable and desirable?

Pragmatist wrote:
Unfortunately, services need to be withdrawn to ensure we live within our means. On the basis of the information provided, the service costs £8500 per user. Do we want to spend that sum of money per year on any one individual?

Can we eliminate the sensationalist rhertoric used by some of the commentators and discuss what is affordable and desirable?

Obviously you have got something to do with it.

Perhaps you like messing up people's lives, and things that may mean nothing to us, but alot to someone less fortunate.

miccles wrote:

Pragmatist wrote:
Unfortunately, services need to be withdrawn to ensure we live within our means. On the basis of the information provided, the service costs £8500 per user. Do we want to spend that sum of money per year on any one individual?

Can we eliminate the sensationalist rhertoric used by some of the commentators and discuss what is affordable and desirable?

Obviously you have got something to do with it.

Perhaps you like messing up people's lives, and things that may mean nothing to us, but alot to someone less fortunate.

Ahh, the association fallacy.

Can we please address the issue:
I am informed that BCC is spending more than its revenue. If you do not cut these services, which other services do you wish to cut?

More cutbacks despite ever increasing Council Tax bills.
~
Is it time to re-organise the way services are provided in South Bucks? I am covering this topic on my latest blog....
~
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “YOUR SAY” link at the top of the page then click on “BLOGS”.

Thak you for restoring this article.

Pragmatist wrote:

miccles wrote:

Pragmatist wrote: Unfortunately, services need to be withdrawn to ensure we live within our means. On the basis of the information provided, the service costs £8500 per user. Do we want to spend that sum of money per year on any one individual? Can we eliminate the sensationalist rhertoric used by some of the commentators and discuss what is affordable and desirable?

Obviously you have got something to do with it. Perhaps you like messing up people's lives, and things that may mean nothing to us, but alot to someone less fortunate.

Ahh, the association fallacy. Can we please address the issue: I am informed that BCC is spending more than its revenue. If you do not cut these services, which other services do you wish to cut?

I do not believe that youhave something to do with it Pragmatist.
~
I just think that your a one of the "Sod the rest - I'm alright Jack" brigade.
~
If you lost 50% of your salary it would make life difficult, but life could still be rich and varied for you.
~
For many of these people who use the facilities this is the one thing that is a constant for them, something to look forward to in an otherwise hard life.
~
But of course, you don't understand and don't want to understand. You think that cutting services like these, so your life can carry on relatively unaffected, is a good thing.
~
Well, I will still object and complain. My "sensationalist rhetoric" - as you call it - is one thing, but your greed and selfishness is another.

Hi BigTommy,
Could we please cease with the ad hominem attacks. I am not rich. I can't afford to purchase a house in this county.

However, the things I do have in life, a good education and a few other small items, I earned without the taxpayers footing any of the bill and my parents were paid off a long time ago.

What I want is a debate about the services we all want that is balanced. I do not want younger generations to be paying for the profligate policies of today.

Pragmatist wrote:

miccles wrote:

Pragmatist wrote: Unfortunately, services need to be withdrawn to ensure we live within our means. On the basis of the information provided, the service costs £8500 per user. Do we want to spend that sum of money per year on any one individual? Can we eliminate the sensationalist rhertoric used by some of the commentators and discuss what is affordable and desirable?

Obviously you have got something to do with it. Perhaps you like messing up people's lives, and things that may mean nothing to us, but alot to someone less fortunate.

Ahh, the association fallacy. Can we please address the issue: I am informed that BCC is spending more than its revenue. If you do not cut these services, which other services do you wish to cut?

It is very easy to be pragmatic when it is not you that it is affected.


You can judge a society by the way it looks after it's old and vulnerable.
I would have no problem with a raise in council tax if I knew that these folk were going to get good care.

THIS IS A DISGRACE.
IF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD NOT GAMBLED OUR MONEY IN ICE-BANK WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THIS MONEY TO PRESERVE THIS VITAL SERVICE.
NOW THEY ARE GAMBLING WITH LIVES AND THIS IS SICK.
WHEN ARE THESE USELESS PEN PUSHERS GOPING TO TENDER THEIR RESIGNATIONS AND PAY THE MONEY BACK?
JUDGE

demoness wrote:

Pragmatist wrote:

miccles wrote:

Pragmatist wrote: Unfortunately, services need to be withdrawn to ensure we live within our means. On the basis of the information provided, the service costs £8500 per user. Do we want to spend that sum of money per year on any one individual? Can we eliminate the sensationalist rhertoric used by some of the commentators and discuss what is affordable and desirable?

Obviously you have got something to do with it. Perhaps you like messing up people's lives, and things that may mean nothing to us, but alot to someone less fortunate.

Ahh, the association fallacy. Can we please address the issue: I am informed that BCC is spending more than its revenue. If you do not cut these services, which other services do you wish to cut?

It is very easy to be pragmatic when it is not you that it is affected.


You can judge a society by the way it looks after it's old and vulnerable.
I would have no problem with a raise in council tax if I knew that these folk were going to get good care.

NO NO NO
GO TO THE BACK OF THE CLASSROOM.
I SUSPECT THAT YOU DONT PAY COUNCIL TAX AND ARE ON BENEFITS.
LOOK.....
WE ARE ALREADY PAYING THE HIGHEST TAXES IN EUROPE AND RUN BY A MISS-MANAGED COUNCIL THAT HAVE WASTED MILLIONS IN ICE-BANK.
DONT BE HOOD-WINKED BY THESE OVER-PAID PEN-PUSHERS.
JUDGE

The Judge wrote:

demoness wrote:

Pragmatist wrote:

miccles wrote:

Pragmatist wrote: Unfortunately, services need to be withdrawn to ensure we live within our means. On the basis of the information provided, the service costs £8500 per user. Do we want to spend that sum of money per year on any one individual? Can we eliminate the sensationalist rhertoric used by some of the commentators and discuss what is affordable and desirable?

Obviously you have got something to do with it. Perhaps you like messing up people's lives, and things that may mean nothing to us, but alot to someone less fortunate.

Ahh, the association fallacy. Can we please address the issue: I am informed that BCC is spending more than its revenue. If you do not cut these services, which other services do you wish to cut?

It is very easy to be pragmatic when it is not you that it is affected.


You can judge a society by the way it looks after it's old and vulnerable.
I would have no problem with a raise in council tax if I knew that these folk were going to get good care.

NO NO NO
GO TO THE BACK OF THE CLASSROOM.
I SUSPECT THAT YOU DONT PAY COUNCIL TAX AND ARE ON BENEFITS.
LOOK.....
WE ARE ALREADY PAYING THE HIGHEST TAXES IN EUROPE AND RUN BY A MISS-MANAGED COUNCIL THAT HAVE WASTED MILLIONS IN ICE-BANK.
DONT BE HOOD-WINKED BY THESE OVER-PAID PEN-PUSHERS.
JUDGE

I hope you are not suggesting that I do not pay council tax, and that I am on benefits, if you do, you better go and wash your mouth out with soap.

I have a full time job, i pay my taxes like most people do, and expect to get a good return for what i pay for.
BCC and WDC, do not give you, what you pay for.
BCC are playing with people here, people that are less fortunate than most, and they are playing dirty games with them, money should not be an issue with peoples lives,
do they (councillors) cut back themselves?? i don't thinkso.

I met Rita Lally once, I say met, rather saw, as she stood up, read from cue cards and sat down again and that was that. Hadn’t seen her before, haven’t seen her since. She spends her time with the other overpaid suits sitting in County Hall with a faceful of danish pastry paid for on expenses deciding how next to ruin people’s lives by deciding for them what they want and don’t want.
Trying to close a £27m black hole by spending further millions on these new centres scattered far and wide? brilliant plan! words fail me.

The Judge wrote:

demoness wrote:

Pragmatist wrote:

miccles wrote:

Pragmatist wrote: Unfortunately, services need to be withdrawn to ensure we live within our means. On the basis of the information provided, the service costs £8500 per user. Do we want to spend that sum of money per year on any one individual? Can we eliminate the sensationalist rhertoric used by some of the commentators and discuss what is affordable and desirable?

Obviously you have got something to do with it. Perhaps you like messing up people's lives, and things that may mean nothing to us, but alot to someone less fortunate.

Ahh, the association fallacy. Can we please address the issue: I am informed that BCC is spending more than its revenue. If you do not cut these services, which other services do you wish to cut?

It is very easy to be pragmatic when it is not you that it is affected. You can judge a society by the way it looks after it's old and vulnerable. I would have no problem with a raise in council tax if I knew that these folk were going to get good care.

NO NO NO GO TO THE BACK OF THE CLASSROOM. I SUSPECT THAT YOU DONT PAY COUNCIL TAX AND ARE ON BENEFITS. LOOK..... WE ARE ALREADY PAYING THE HIGHEST TAXES IN EUROPE AND RUN BY A MISS-MANAGED COUNCIL THAT HAVE WASTED MILLIONS IN ICE-BANK. DONT BE HOOD-WINKED BY THESE OVER-PAID PEN-PUSHERS. JUDGE

Oh you are a silly little man aren't you.
Not that it is relevant but I do have a full time job, pay tax and council tax as well. Quite why you suspect I don't is anyone's guess. But then I could make an assumption that you are no way a judge or even legally trained because you have the literacy of a baboon . :)
As I say... you can judge a society by the way it looks after its elderly and vulnerable.

Well we are dealing with a tory run authority,what do you expect.
Hit the poor and the disadvanted first.

norma stitz wrote:
Well we are dealing with a tory run authority,what do you expect. Hit the poor and the disadvanted first.

here here line there own pockets first.
then make cut backs to make up on whats gone missing

I wonder if our newly elected Wycombe MP has anything to contribute on this issue?
He seems to have been remarkably silent on everything except for his glossy pre-election pamphlet.
Very photogenic but has he got the wherewithal to actually DO anything that will justify his salary?
In the last month I haven't seen any evidence of this although 2 other MPs have featured in BFP headlines in the last few days.
Early days I know but I can't help but think that the constituents' tails are being wagged by the dogs who feed them.

Guys, read the report - then read it again - it's what they DON'T tell you that is important.
When they say they will give you money to buy in your own services - you then become an employer, your house becomes a place of work & subject to all that this entails. YOU will be expected to keep accurate work records, maybe even paying national insurance etc etc - and you won't be able to access Soc Serv day centres etc - as you have the money to buy your own day care.

They don't tell you where all these thousands of new carers will becoming from either. Worst case, you'll end up with loads of chavs and pikeys putting themselves forward as carers - just so they can rummage round your nan's house & abuse her (it's happened many times in other counties, some have been bad enough to make the nationals).
The report starts out by saying how they interviewed over 300 service users - when they say 'interviewed', I'll wager the quesions were so worded as to illicit exactly the response they wanted.
And when Social Services have whittled day care down by 80%, will the many, many senior managers in charge of day services be taking an 80% pay cut? Will the hierarchy of Soc. Serv. cut 80% of the management structure? I very much doubt it - and this is where the biggest money pit really is - the system is way too top heavy with managers, senior managers , executive managers and associated staff (PAs, secretaries etc etc).

My wife is an official carer for her father. He has very early stages of dementia. he has carers going in mornings and evenings to help get up/dressed/fed/meds.

Without this help, he will sit and fester - he won't turn on the telly & he won't even bother getting up to go to the toilet (he thinks he's just been!) and neither will he drink.
Without his day care, my wife would have to give up her full time work to look after her dad. As it is, the kids and I barely see her. so the state would be paying lots of money out to provide additional carers as well as paying my wife to be a carer.
He doesn't just use Soc Serv day centres though, he isn't allowed 5 day a week day care, so we have had to make arrangements to get him to other local resources.
It is only at the Soc Serv day unit that he can have a bath - his bathroom is too small for 2 people & he cannot get in/out of the bath on his own. There is a visiting chiropodist - OK, we pay extra for this but it is still cheaper than one of us taking half a day off work & paying for a taxi to take us to the chiropodist (which would also confuse him a great deal). The day centre also has visits from a local district nurse - great for all those injections or blood tests etc - again, we would have to take time off work, get a\ taxi etc.
The day centre also has a hairdresser - again, saves us even more time.
At the day centre, he gets a choisce of meal, he has a healthy appetite so we know he is getting a decent hot meal - of his choice and not some random slop dished up by the latest meal delivery team. The centre also provides a 'tea bag' service - sandwich, drink, snack etc in a small paper carrier, OK, so we pay extra for this - but again, it saves one of us from having to keep going round to see him as his evening carer makes sure he's ok with his food.
And that is just our life. Multiply this by the thousands who attend - not just elderly but also learning disabled etc. We have a neighbour whose daughter has a learning disability & attends the centre 5 days per week. Without this, one of her parents would need to stay at home, as it is, both parents can work - they are lucky in that one starts much earlier so there is always someone home to send or receive their daughter on transport.
I wonder if these people who want to close day centres have ever had to spend all day caring for someone who craves constant attention? It's OK for a day or two but try doing it day in, day out.
Of course, all these overpaid fatcats can afford to send their relatives to private care can't they?

how can closing 22 centres & having just 5 facilities county wide be of benefit to so many vunerable people?How will they have "Day opportunities" when they will have to share these facilities with so many? These places will be holding centres & offer little opportunity at all especially to those without a voice.Its going back to the old institutional days -as always full circle. After a few years and several million it will be back to how it is now but at what cost and to whom??? Why have a so called consultation period? Who is being consulted? - in reality veiws dont matter ,its all decided and will go ahead anyway. Its all just more wasted money on fancy booklets, meetings without answers and overpaid people who have never seen what really goes on in a day centre.