Councillors - what do they actually do?

Look at this the record speaks for itself. Gets elected and draws the "allowance" - I think its just "thumbing the nose" at the electors. What do you think?

The Government seems hell bent on stifling Councils of money. and I do ask, why do Councils run all these services like, emptying bins, social care and welfare, schools, child care, homelessness? Surely they are national services like the Job Centres etc, why shouldn't agencies run them on behalf of the Government. They can set the rules and guidelines like the Police and take them off Councils. they then can be left with a little money raised locally do to do "local" things for the Community. Councillors should be genuinely "Volunteers" and just get token expenses.

What do you think. As it stands they "run" these councils and are a bunch of Political amateurs who misappropriate and mismanage the millions that they have (much like the BBC and that's unelected).

BBC standards slipping

The BBC standards are slipping.

I'm fed up with lurid news items on the 6pm news and Look North. They mention Rape/War/Sex, show bodies etc.

Yes this is WELL before the "watershed" and BBC Director Tony Hall seems to think this is OK?

I DO NOT. I have a 4 year old and would expect that the 6pm news - being before the Watershed is OK for her to see. How do you explain Rape to a 4 year old.

Yes I realise that in these days of on-line viewing, catch-up TV, YouTube etc children can access all sorts of dubious material and filth but if you leave you child in front of the TV at 5-7pm shouldn't you expect some minimum standards?

At the end of the day maybe I should not allow the NEWS to be on at all but at 6pm they should tone it down.

I have noticed that Films are shown in an afternoon that were released as PG or 15 and now in in an afternoon, 3pm or 4pm young children could be watching - surely the Board odf Film Censors has not got an expiry date after which their rating miraculously disappears and all is OK?

I do despair. After all WE OWN the BBC don't we. It is a Public service just like having your Bins emptied that we pay TAX for.

I give up - PRIVATISE THE BBC - get rid of it and save the £3billion - spend it on the NHS.

Ched Evans Rape conviction - should he play Football?

Still going on about Ched Evans I see, 

I'll re-iterate what I said about a month ago, its about time the FA decided its "rules" on ex-offenders, these things should not be decided by Mass Mob Hystreria or Social Media. That's why we have LAWS.

Ched Evans Rape conviction - should he be allowed to return to Football?

Its down to the FA i say.

Reasons, we have laws in this country for a reason. There are rules around dealing with rehabilitaion of ex-offenders, for example it depends on

• type of offence
• length of sentence.

I believe that if your sentence is less than 2.5 years then after 10 years it can be considered "spent" - ie that means that you don't have to tell anyone about it - you get a fresh start.

So, Ched was sentenced to 5 years so it can never be "spent".

Next if its a sexual offence, as his was, you have to on the Sex offenders register for life. So with for example Teachers they can never teach again or work with children if it was a "sex" offence. MPs can't be Mp's if their offence was more than 1 year sentence and so it goes on.

I say, in my opinion it is up to the FA to decide how they deal with ex-offenders. They need to set down their rules.

Nothing stopping Ched being a Lorry Driver.

Why Bother Having Children?

Why Bother Having Children?

Why do so many parents have children then as soon as they can shove them in a Nursery. then they go to school till their 18 then hopefully start work/leave home? Where are the family values etc of raising a family?
I despair.
To me this is the root of ALL society's problems now. We have no Family unit, we don't "care" for each other. We are isolated, just me, me, me. Parents spend all their time on iPADs or phones, I know a teacher who had to ask a parent at parent's evening to "stop using the phone" (she was texting) while he was talking about her daughter.She gave him mouth full of abuse and left.

Money isn't everything, I know its important and essential to a good healthy life but what's wrong with prioritising your Children first? We did. Sacrifice when they're young and teach them your values etc. the benefits will come later.

Look at this letter written to BBC news , highlighted by MHMT

Dear Sir/Madam, I have been married for nearly 18 years and we have 3 children aged 13, 11 and 9. When we got married we bought our house with the intention that we would be able to pay the mortgage on one salary so that I wouldn't have to work if we had children. I do work, thankfully I managed to secure a permanent part time job as a Community Paediatrician in my local hospital. I chose not to continue my training to become a consultant as the hours I would have had to work would have meant barely seeing my children!
My children did attend childcare when they were pre school age - for up to 2 days a week which they loved but those hours were more than enough and they were exhausted after those days!
As they have got older and attended school I have been very fortunate to be able to work fairly flexibly and have my mum nearby to do school pick ups if I can't.
As my children have got older they need me more rather than less and I tend to come home from work earlier than I did when they were younger. If my job had not been so flexible and I had felt that it was impacting on my children I would have given it up. Money would have been tight but we would have managed.
I certainly would not ever consider more childcare regardless of how cheap or expensive it might be. My children need me.
I spend my days at work trying to pick up the pieces for children from chaotic broken homes and also from middle class homes where children never see their parents apart from the weekends!

Obviously some people have to work to make ends meet and not all children suffer negative effects of long hours of childcare. But why as a society can we not make it easier for parents to care for their own children instead of forcing them into the workplace and taking even more parents away from their children to care for other people's children!!

Let's think about what children need, not what the economy needs or what parents need! Our children are the economy and the society of the future so their needs are what is really important!

Thank you to the author of this letter from MAHM. Let's hope someone listens somewhere!

BBC losing sight of its responsibilities?

Anyone else been upset by the BBC this week ?
Last week as laudable as it was and professionally produced, good BBC  drama,  "Passing Bells" about WW 1 was NOT suitable viewing for 7pm. Young children could be watching. Also the 6pm news has featured a lot about the Ebola crisis and Syria, showing some distressing scenes, even bodies, definitely NOT suitable for young children. The BBC should be more responsible. Why is there no protests, is it just me?

bliss

no idea what's going on on the World. Except Korean ship disaster . if 200+ missing i guess they're drowned? how devastating for a community, remember Aberfan ? terrible, so sad.

Childen's education - when should it start?

I agree in one sense the earlier and better we educate our children the better for society.
Its too late when children get to secondary school and they can't read and write properly. This is where the underachieving comes in. They get distracted and won't learn. Yes there are some gifted and dedicated teachers who can tap into these kids and get them motivated to at least learn the basics to function in society. Too often its too little and too late, They disrupt lessons for the others and then get excluded. They end up on the scrap heap unemployed often into drugs and crime.
To me get them early while they are manageable and EDUCATE them, the regards to society will be tenfold.

We'll get a much better progressing society. Politicians go on about social mobility but its not pushing them into the best schools or Universities if they haven't got it then it won't get them anywhere.

The majority should be able to learn the basics. If I'd left school at eleven I'd be Ok in society. I went on to be stretched (in a grammar school) to go to Uni and get a degree. In those days it was the minority and we got a grant. How "socially mobile"is that? No matter what your background or income you get the opportunity to go to uni.

Now its still Money that buys privilege and I mean MONEY. Look at the top politicians all Eton educated.

I agree it should be the parents who teach these things to their tots not schools responsibility but when we've let a couple of generations get away with  it , learning little, they don't know what to do. It IS up to society to educate the children - give it another generation and we'll turn it around.

Look at Asia/China they are doing it now. They educate their children rigorously and now they're the powerhouse of the world, EVERYTHING is Made in China. We don't make much anymore - soon we won't be able to afford. Made in China.

Compulsory Cycle Helmets

I make no apology for being passionate about Cycle Helmets. We have personal experience, and every need to thank them! Please ensure all children wear a helmet.

Tax system unfair to stay-at-home parents

I'll tell you just how unfair the tax system is to couples on low incomes who want to look after their children. Just look at this example. Why shouldn't the tax system help married couples where one gives up work to raise a family? They should be treated as a unit.

For easy reckoning I'm assuming the Tax allowance is £10k as promised for the next budget. So Man and woman (or civil partnership couples) earning £15k each have a joint income gross of £30k , but each has a £10k allowance so together
that can earn £20k and pay tax on the last £10k, net income £20 tax free.
Now if one chooses to stay at home and look after the children, they lose £10k of tax allowance so even if one is lucky to earn £30k they still only get £10k allowance so joint income is reduced, only £10k is tax free they have to pay tax on £20k.

So I ask is that fair on married couples sacrificing income to bring up children, leaving a job open for someone else but paying TWICE as much tax on the same income.? How is that fair.

Come on Cameron you're Married and a dad. If your income was only £30k what would you prefer?

Bonkers Government gives more money to the rich

Here we go again this Bonkers Government gives out more money to rich WORKING people

What about the Election pledge to help Married Couples (they may have children as well)?

Also would help Gay people in Civil Partnerships.

Giving money out (MY MONEY) to couples who put their kids in child care is Bonkers

In these times of austerity isn't ONE breadwinner per family enough  One stays at home to look after the children. If you can't afford childcare don't do it!

If Married couples had tax breaks then the one who stays at home would be helped by more income from the one working.

Raising children by their parents is by FAR the best way - statistics and endless studies have proved it. Being in a MARRIAGE is also the best way. There is NO equality for "Living together" - I'm not stopping you but if you want the benefits (not social security) real benefits for you and you r family, not to mention SOCIETY then get married!!

SIMPLE

You know it makes sense.

Think of the jobs this would create. All these mums n dads stopping at home, who would do their jobs? Also yes they would have less money, but cut down.

Sky TV is NOT your human right, even though prisoners get it.

Nursery for Monsters

I don't think the nurseries turn the children into monsters. Have they looked at the home life at all?

There are so many parents who expect to abdicate their responsibilities to the nursery/school to teach the child  everything. I think actually the children spend more time NOT in the nursery  so who is to blame. So many kids are neglected  I don't mean literally, but emotionally. At home they are put in front of TV or computer to occupy them. What damage does the haunted-fishtank do. The eye goes directly to the brain, whilst its growing the neurons are forming. They are NOT  getting the right stimulus, they are not getting the rules of behaviour and how to function, so why do you think they become antisocial. If its not what's learnt from Children's TV its from violent video game. That;'s why they're savages.

In a loving caring homogeneous family with proper moral values, the children learn from the parents and its becomes wired in their brains.
perhaps the idea would be to encourage one parent to stay home and look after the children. I'm not anti-nursery, but its a fact that children brought up at home with Married parents achieve more in later life.
The money poured in could be used to give tax breaks to married couples, YES, and thus jobs freed up for the unemployed childless!

What about that George?

Jimmy Savile

Now there really is vile in Jimmy's name. The things that allegedly went on are VILE.

I am not condoning anything allegedly done to Children however we must remember the climate was different 50 years ago. What young man, pop star, DJ would not resist a girl flaunting herself at them. We know what went on and did they ask if they wee under 16? No.
But the rest? No way, it is sick!

There is a responsibility on all society to protect children. However I notice over the years a softening to attitudes to sex with Children. Under 16s are children and must be protected from themselves as much as the predators. Look at the 30 year old teacher going to France with his 15yr old pupil,  yes the law will deal with it but was the girl co-earced? Yes she's under 16 so must e protected by law. It is WRONG.

Again however, how much under age sex goes unpunished? HOw many over 16's are prosecued for sex with under 16s? very few I think. The law sees it as pointless. But where do we draw the line? If Jimmy Savile is a criminal then so are the rest. ZERO  tolerance I say.

Children by definition do not understand what they are doing and the over 16's must be told (by prosecution) that it is against the LAW. That is why thelaw exists.

Parents must exercise their responsibilities and accept that under age sex is against the law. It is there because it ruins lives.Children are sexualised at a far too young age and we mus stop it.. Letting unfettered access to the internet is responsible as well - parents again must be made responsible and society has to accept the constraints.

IF we cease to protect our vulnerable children where does that leave us?