@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Oooh, we used to dream of living on a barge. Barge would have been like a palace to us. We had nowt but a rotten dinghy wit'ole in bottom.
It's so depressing on here this evening. Apart from @Leon's exciting trip to the Maldives,of course.
Not really.
Three beers for £5 even at Waitrose today (Abbot's ale/green king IPA etc) which still equates to £1.90 a pint, so I've sunk three of those and feeling pretty happy.
Sun's out. Economy grew today. Inflation down a bit. No-one died.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Oooh, we used to dream of living on a barge. Barge would have been like a palace to us. We had nowt but a rotten dinghy wit'ole in bottom.
Bottom? You had a roof? Luxury.
Course not. The hole was in bottom and let all the bloody water in, so we slept each night in canal water.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It is a legal obligation.
Not helped by gross underfunding of children's secure residential homes over the years, and often closures because of various abuse and grooming scandals.
Then that legal obligation has to fucking change, why should people who struggle to feed there children, house their children be forced to contribute to this?
Go on justify it most people with kids struggle as I did and often had to do without but there tax money is funding kids having 250k a year on them and you wonder why we say fuck you?
Sure, I too would far prefer to spend money on Surestart centres, Child and Adolescent Mental Health services, support for parents etc. Otherwise the costs come later and the outcomes worse.
Dont give me that shit, these kids are probably more victims of parents and none of those would work. Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for the kids. I just think 250k per child most would go no fuck off and die I am not paying my taxes for that....maybe 25k
What about expensive medical treatment for people? Want to cap this too?
Yes of course. We already do don't we? You can't have unlimited state funding.
But we don't have a per person cap. This is not how we roll.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It is a legal obligation.
Not helped by gross underfunding of children's secure residential homes over the years, and often closures because of various abuse and grooming scandals.
Then that legal obligation has to fucking change, why should people who struggle to feed there children, house their children be forced to contribute to this?
Go on justify it most people with kids struggle as I did and often had to do without but there tax money is funding kids having 250k a year on them and you wonder why we say fuck you?
Sure, I too would far prefer to spend money on Surestart centres, Child and Adolescent Mental Health services, support for parents etc. Otherwise the costs come later and the outcomes worse.
Dont give me that shit, these kids are probably more victims of parents and none of those would work. Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for the kids. I just think 250k per child most would go no fuck off and die I am not paying my taxes for that....maybe 25k
What about expensive medical treatment for people? Want to cap this too?
Yes of course. We already do don't we? You can't have unlimited state funding.
But we don't have a per person cap. This is not how we roll.
You won’t be happy until you’ve turned the entire UK into a Bulgarian rest stop lavatory
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
To put it in to context £250k is the total income tax paid by 33 working adults that earn £50k per year.
However, the cost to society of a murder is £3.2 million. Other crimes are also horribly expensive, and there's a definite bias to messed up kids ending up a criminals.
I'm not saying spending a fortune on messed up children works, or that the cost can't be cut, or that the sums add up. I don't know.
But it's plausible that this is the best value non dystopian option.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
To put it in to context £250k the total income tax paid by 33 working adults that earn £50k per year.
How about doing the same calc for the money pissed away on our 'independent nuclear deterrent'?
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
To put it in to context £250k the total income tax paid by 33 working adults that earn £50k per year.
How about doing the same calc for the money pissed away on our 'independent nuclear deterrent'?
A better point would be to work out how many chief executives of MATs or university vice-chancellors are on that kind of money.
And then ask yourselves, whether anyone would notice if they ceased to receive it.
(I think there is a tendency in this field to throw money at it, by the way, but as @Stuartinromford points out above this is one where economies can easily become false economies.)
My guess is a Michelle Obama campaign is going to run quickly into questions about some of the allegations / points in here
I agree absolutely with your first point, it is literally insane that the incumbent Veep is fifth favourite for the nomination. She's one slip on the steps away from the Presidency ffs.
With regard to your second point, I flatly disagree about the Michelle Obama campaign, because there isn't one and there isn't going to be one. There's a lot of wishcasting going on, which is not the same thing. She is not Hilary Clinton in any way, shape or form.
I think MO was given that horrid racist trope of “angry black woman” which will stick. She’s clearly very intelligent and knows the workings of gov from Barrack Obama (was going to write BO but that might be rude). There are too many attack lines for Trump and co against her.
Weirdly it might be that the first black woman, even woman, president might come from the republicans much as with the Tories producing the first and second (that’s all there were, yes?) female PMs and the first minority PM (if you discount Disraeli).
That trope will stick because America is deeply structurally racist?
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
To put it in to context £250k the total income tax paid by 33 working adults that earn £50k per year.
How about doing the same calc for the money pissed away on our 'independent nuclear deterrent'?
Yeah, because unilaterally giving up their nukes worked out REALLY well for Ukraine. Fuckwit
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
To put it in to context £250k the total income tax paid by 33 working adults that earn £50k per year.
How about doing the same calc for the money pissed away on our 'independent nuclear deterrent'?
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
To put it in to context £250k the total income tax paid by 33 working adults that earn £50k per year.
How about doing the same calc for the money pissed away on our 'independent nuclear deterrent'?
Worth every penny.
We live in one of the safest and most stable parts of the world because we have a nuclear defence, not in spite of it.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
When I referred to poor nutrition under HO care earlier, I hadn't realised there were actual cases of scurvy as well as the TB we known about.
Also: "weeks" before the barge is fit for use again. (Which surprises me a bit. Perhaps they just use a slow tester.)
That piece doesn't refer to poor nutrition under HO care, it refers to inadequate screening, strongly implying (as seems somewhat more likely) that the sufferers picked up their conditions before they got to the UK. Catering for asylum seekers in the UK is by companies who are obliged by their contracts to provide fresh fruit at any time of the day.
What I find interesting is the aggression (and frankly sheer length) of this anti-Suella briefing from a 'senior Tory':
“This utter farce follows endless warnings to Home Office ministers about the prospect of health outbreaks, inadequate health screening and wider public health concerns following cases of TB and scurvy in recent weeks in these highly contentious migrant accommodation sites.
“Having created a serious and now deadly migrant housing crisis, it is obvious to all that the Home Secretary has lost all control and authority on the issue of illegal migration.
“She is responsible for this crisis and should be held to account for her irresponsible actions that have brought disease to these sites and now threaten the public health of the local community.
“She should be sacked.”
It reads more like a press release than someone sounding off in frustration to a journalist. Absolutely toxic.
The piece isn't clear either way re scurvy. But it's odd as it shouldn't even exist after a while of decent food, even if it is a prior syndrome.
Edit: I've seen specific reports of some contractors - hotels, anyway - which don't provide even remorely balanced diets.
I think you're jumping to Dickensian treatment as a reason because that's what you want to find. I am sure there have been examples of less than 5-star service in some of the accommodation, it is a state-provided service after all, look at NHS food. That doesn't mean jumping to a conclusion that 'Cruella is giving people scurvy' isn't ludicrous, and frankly deplorable, character assassination.
Not jumping to conclusions. Malnutrition is a fairly reasonable conclusion from British institutional food standards, combined with HO efficiency.
The reports from some hotels were pretty horrific. Worse than prison food. And I don't think prison or some NHS or school food is nearly good enough anyway.
In any case, poor food is a serious contributor to lowered immunity to disease.
I hope AI will hold off on “replacing travel journalists” for just two more months. I’m meant to be going to the Maldives for the Gazette in early October. Two of the swankiest new hotels on the planet, with world class scuba
Two months. Is all I ask. Plz
At least AI would spell “please” correctly.
Those are the adorable and Very Human Quirks that AI can NEVER REPLACE
More seriously, travel writing will be one of the last creative jobs to be automated. Quite hard for a computer to have a mojito in Soneva Fushi
Everyone else is fucked, tho
You can't automate 'idle progressive in Hampstead'.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
To put it in to context £250k is the total income tax paid by 33 working adults that earn £50k per year.
However, the cost to society of a murder is £3.2 million. Other crimes are also horribly expensive, and there's a definite bias to messed up kids ending up a criminals.
I'm not saying spending a fortune on messed up children works, or that the cost can't be cut, or that the sums add up. I don't know.
But it's plausible that this is the best value non dystopian option.
The overcomes for children in care are not good - and more money spent does not correlate well with positive results.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Oooh, we used to dream of living on a barge. Barge would have been like a palace to us. We had nowt but a rotten dinghy wit'ole in bottom.
Bottom? You had a roof? Luxury.
Course not. The hole was in bottom and let all the bloody water in, so we slept each night in canal water.
The water was bloody? You did have a hard time of it..
I hope AI will hold off on “replacing travel journalists” for just two more months. I’m meant to be going to the Maldives for the Gazette in early October. Two of the swankiest new hotels on the planet, with world class scuba
Two months. Is all I ask. Plz
At least AI would spell “please” correctly.
Those are the adorable and Very Human Quirks that AI can NEVER REPLACE
More seriously, travel writing will be one of the last creative jobs to be automated. Quite hard for a computer to have a mojito in Soneva Fushi
Everyone else is fucked, tho
You can't automate 'idle progressive in Hampstead'.
Full time care for children who have been forced there through presumably difficult upbringings is always going to struggle to find the scale to be cost effective. Assuming you need 24-hour coverage, and allowing for weekends and holidays, you quickly get to 5 people working full time divided by the adult:child ratio per day. If that ratio has to be 1:1 for whatever reason, it isn't hard to see how you end up with figures like £250k pa.
High quality child care centres can likely reduce the adult:child ratio is implemented well, otherwise adoption or foster care brings huge (cost and social) benefits.
But we should also do more to support and educate parents, and have intervention early where necessary where the adoption option is easier.
Ultimately, the failure of politicians and society to plan for the care of children shouldn't let us abdicate our responsibilities towards children in care.
It's so depressing on here this evening. Apart from @Leon's exciting trip to the Maldives,of course.
Not really.
Three beers for £5 even at Waitrose today (Abbot's ale/green king IPA etc) which still equates to £1.90 a pint, so I've sunk three of those and feeling pretty happy.
Sun's out. Economy grew today. Inflation down a bit. No-one died.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
Does it really work like this in practice though - how much choice does the authority have? I understood that there is a shortage of homes which is why new providers are setting up, some with questionable motivations.
I had a thought the other day - why aren't haggis sausages a thing? I like haggis but couldn't eat a whole one.
Vegan haggis from a mobile stall at Kilt Rock, Isle of Skye, back in 2019. Not too bad!
But not actually haggis, eh.
Well, a lot of commercial haggis is made with beef, so even the un-veg haggis isn't really haggis anyway. So why worry? Sunil is happy with a vegan meal that is actually far closer to the meaty original than most of the imitation type dishes.
I hope AI will hold off on “replacing travel journalists” for just two more months. I’m meant to be going to the Maldives for the Gazette in early October. Two of the swankiest new hotels on the planet, with world class scuba
Two months. Is all I ask. Plz
At least AI would spell “please” correctly.
Those are the adorable and Very Human Quirks that AI can NEVER REPLACE
More seriously, travel writing will be one of the last creative jobs to be automated. Quite hard for a computer to have a mojito in Soneva Fushi
Everyone else is fucked, tho
I guess the difference will be between “travel guides” and travel “feels”. If you want an itinerary and descriptions of what is there and food in restaurants then AI will be ok but if you have a favourite travel writer, who you discover likes the things you like, with emotion then AI won’t replace it.
Nah, travel journalism is formulaic pufferey, commissioned by travel companies to pad out the Sunday supplements.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
Also, what kind of imbecile country would give up its independent nuclear deterrent with the prospect of Trump 2.0 in the White House in 2024? Can any nation in NATO really be sure of the American nuke umbrella under Trump?
Ok he might defend the UK because of his golf courses in Scotland or whatever but still. I’d be much less sure if I was Estonian or German or Bulgarian. Indeed I’m fairly certain Trump would NOT defend them
Garland’s appointment of a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden is curiously unpopular with Republicans in Congress.
Half of the House Republican conference wrote to Merrick Garland last year asking him to appoint a special counsel in the Hunter Biden case. Now that he's done it they are acting mad, including many who signed this letter https://twitter.com/Fritschner/status/1690057653899141123
Note David Weiss was appointed a US attorney by Trump.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
“Ballast existence” is the phrase you are looking for
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
Does it really work like this in practice though - how much choice does the authority have? I understood that there is a shortage of homes which is why new providers are setting up, some with questionable motivations.
I remember reading years ago that children growing up in care have the worst outcomes. Worse even that leaving them with their catastrophically dysfunctional or abusive families. No idea if that's still the case, but if it is, it's a dilemma.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
“Ballast existence” is the phrase you are looking for
T-4-4-U
Hadn't heard the expression, and it seems to be a translation of the specifically Nazi ballastexistenz. Which in a variety of ways is not my point. What does t44u mean?
He's clearly playing it for laughs, and doing it well
Also
"One up the bum, no harm done" was a meme me and my friends had at Uni. We used to do variations
"Take her from behind, she won't mind"
"Put it in the sh1tter, won't know what's 'it 'er"
"One in the colon? Stroll on"
Yes, misogynistic, vulgar, extremely juvenile and quite offensive, but we were late teen lads in the early 80s. That's how things went down, and it was fun
Talking of which, I went to a geriatric stag do the other day. Couple getting married after 35 years of cohabiting etc. At the do, I realised there were 8 guys I'd known since Uni (or the squatting years that came right after) and 4 of these ageing drunks were solid good friends, and have been all through that time. Guys I could tell anything, and vice versa. And we've been strong pals for four DECADES, and we still hang out
That's no small thing. The friends you make at Uni are so important. It also gives the lie to this feminist idea that men don't make friends. What rubbish
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
“Ballast existence” is the phrase you are looking for
T-4-4-U
Hadn't heard the expression, and it seems to be a translation of the specifically Nazi ballastexistenz. Which in a variety of ways is not my point. What does t44u mean?
T-4 For You
Measuring the value of humans according to their economic input gets my sarcasm going.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
“Ballast existence” is the phrase you are looking for
T-4-4-U
Hadn't heard the expression, and it seems to be a translation of the specifically Nazi ballastexistenz. Which in a variety of ways is not my point. What does t44u mean?
T-4 For You
Measuring the value of humans according to their economic input gets my sarcasm going.
The hammer comes down. Judge Tanya Chutkan rules that justice will take priority over Trump’s political campaign: “The fact that he (Trump) is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice, and if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how its going to have to be.” https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1690014344292032512
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
“Ballast existence” is the phrase you are looking for
T-4-4-U
Hadn't heard the expression, and it seems to be a translation of the specifically Nazi ballastexistenz. Which in a variety of ways is not my point. What does t44u mean?
T-4 For You
Measuring the value of humans according to their economic input gets my sarcasm going.
The hammer comes down. Judge Tanya Chutkan rules that justice will take priority over Trump’s political campaign: “The fact that he (Trump) is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice, and if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how its going to have to be.” https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1690014344292032512
Odds on him being in prison for the Iowa caucas suddenly shortened dramatically.
The police are saying there was more to it than revealed in the clip.
I do hope that is true, because otherwise this seems to have been a truly gross overreaction, but unfortunately given the recent record of the police I am not disposed to give them the benefit of the doubt.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
“Ballast existence” is the phrase you are looking for
T-4-4-U
Hadn't heard the expression, and it seems to be a translation of the specifically Nazi ballastexistenz. Which in a variety of ways is not my point. What does t44u mean?
T-4 For You
Measuring the value of humans according to their economic input gets my sarcasm going.
T44U is one of my best genocide jokes, I think.
Are you drunk? Wannabe edgy genocide jokes at 9 pm on a Friday. Or just going out of your way to illustrate the truism that everyone *thinks* they have a sense of humour?
My girlfriend worked with children in these sort of circumstances for 20 years, so I know what I am talking about. Which is the great sadness of the fact they tend to be unfixable. I don't give a toss about their economic input.
The police are saying there was more to it than revealed in the clip.
I do hope that is true, because otherwise this seems to have been a truly gross overreaction, but unfortunately given the recent record of the police I am not disposed to give them the benefit of the doubt.
They've issued another statement saying they've released the girl and will take no further action.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
“Ballast existence” is the phrase you are looking for
T-4-4-U
Hadn't heard the expression, and it seems to be a translation of the specifically Nazi ballastexistenz. Which in a variety of ways is not my point. What does t44u mean?
T-4 For You
Measuring the value of humans according to their economic input gets my sarcasm going.
T44U is one of my best genocide jokes, I think.
Are you drunk? Wannabe edgy genocide jokes at 9 pm on a Friday. Or just going out of your way to illustrate the truism that everyone *thinks* they have a sense of humour?
My girlfriend worked with children in these sort of circumstances for 20 years, so I know what I am talking about. Which is the great sadness of the fact they tend to be unfixable. I don't give a toss about their economic input.
I get rather touchy about people talking in terms of the viability of humans versus economic value. Which is what this conversation was about.
£250K is the price for our humanity *and* theirs.
EDIT: a social worker once told a mother, in front of the child, in my presence that the child (mentally disabled) shouldn’t have been born. I was surprised the social worker was uninjured.
The police are saying there was more to it than revealed in the clip.
I do hope that is true, because otherwise this seems to have been a truly gross overreaction, but unfortunately given the recent record of the police I am not disposed to give them the benefit of the doubt.
They've issued another statement saying they've released the girl and will take no further action.
The police are saying there was more to it than revealed in the clip.
I do hope that is true, because otherwise this seems to have been a truly gross overreaction, but unfortunately given the recent record of the police I am not disposed to give them the benefit of the doubt.
They've issued another statement saying they've released the girl and will take no further action.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
“Ballast existence” is the phrase you are looking for
T-4-4-U
Hadn't heard the expression, and it seems to be a translation of the specifically Nazi ballastexistenz. Which in a variety of ways is not my point. What does t44u mean?
T-4 For You
Measuring the value of humans according to their economic input gets my sarcasm going.
T44U is one of my best genocide jokes, I think.
Are you drunk? Wannabe edgy genocide jokes at 9 pm on a Friday. Or just going out of your way to illustrate the truism that everyone *thinks* they have a sense of humour?
My girlfriend worked with children in these sort of circumstances for 20 years, so I know what I am talking about. Which is the great sadness of the fact they tend to be unfixable. I don't give a toss about their economic input.
I get rather touchy about people talking in terms of the viability of humans versus economic value. Which is what this conversation was about.
£250K is the price for our humanity *and* theirs.
Misjudged tone, is the kindest thing I have to say. "One of my best genocide jokes" ffs
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
To put it in to context £250k the total income tax paid by 33 working adults that earn £50k per year.
How about doing the same calc for the money pissed away on our 'independent nuclear deterrent'?
Yeah, because unilaterally giving up their nukes worked out REALLY well for Ukraine. Fuckwit
What a yawny dim comment from a yawny dim individual.
It's so depressing on here this evening. Apart from @Leon's exciting trip to the Maldives,of course.
I’m doing my best to keep spirits up
I may also be off to Australia for a free tour of the national parks around Sydney, if that helps the mood improve?
No, sorry, the Maldives is the pinnacle this evening. So far.
This is the view from my holiday cottage.
OOOOH, that's a tasty challenge, Where is that?
Clearly volcanic. yet green, yet also a tad bleak, and it's on the coast, but with apparently warm sun and another islet in the background. Slightly basic housing, but that could mean its simply exposed to harsh/shit weather so the buildings are forced to be utilitarian
So it could be one of:
Iceland Canaries Aeolians even Hawaii Azores?
Without Google "imaging", I'm gonna go with a remoter area of the Canaries, on the west coast, hence the sunset and the greenery coz it gets more rain
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
To put it in to context £250k the total income tax paid by 33 working adults that earn £50k per year.
How about doing the same calc for the money pissed away on our 'independent nuclear deterrent'?
Yeah, because unilaterally giving up their nukes worked out REALLY well for Ukraine. Fuckwit
What a yawny dim comment from a yawny dim individual.
Why don't you try putting it in a manifesto, and see how the British public respond? I think we all know the answer, we all know how they'd respond, which is why Sir Kir Royale Starmer won't go within a fucking trillion miles of your tired, aged, virtue-signalling-lefty socially-nervous bullshit
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It’s totally unjustifiable. The whole welfare state/endless migration house of cards is gonna collapse this decade
Our whole system is set up to treat migrant as hallowed and traumatised guests who deserve the benefit of the doubt and the very best.
It's a different standard of care to what lifelong residents experience and well they know it.
We put lifelong residents up on barges?
It seems to me that some of our contributors would rather like children in care to also be housed in barges. Bugger, I may have given Suella and Lee an idea.
Do you think that there should be any financial limit on the amount paid per child?
Yes. I also think that no private company should be able to use children's homes or any other aspect of the care system as a means of lining their pockets.
Historically the service was provided by charities and local authorities. It was shite and unresponsive to changing demands (inevitably that sort of organisation says “this is the Human Resources we have, this is what you are getting”)
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
They are, sadly, not all shiny and new and fixed by all this. They don't usually emerge into university or the jobs market but into supervised adult council accommodation.
“Ballast existence” is the phrase you are looking for
T-4-4-U
Hadn't heard the expression, and it seems to be a translation of the specifically Nazi ballastexistenz. Which in a variety of ways is not my point. What does t44u mean?
T-4 For You
Measuring the value of humans according to their economic input gets my sarcasm going.
T44U is one of my best genocide jokes, I think.
Are you drunk? Wannabe edgy genocide jokes at 9 pm on a Friday. Or just going out of your way to illustrate the truism that everyone *thinks* they have a sense of humour?
My girlfriend worked with children in these sort of circumstances for 20 years, so I know what I am talking about. Which is the great sadness of the fact they tend to be unfixable. I don't give a toss about their economic input.
I get rather touchy about people talking in terms of the viability of humans versus economic value. Which is what this conversation was about.
£250K is the price for our humanity *and* theirs.
Misjudged tone, is the kindest thing I have to say. "One of my best genocide jokes" ffs
Well, of one half of my family, the Nazis got half, the Communists got most of the rest.
Genocide jokes are how we roll.
My favourite is still the watchtower joke - as told by the Chief Rabbi of Northern Ireland. Which had its own, rich, dark comedy as a position, when you think of it.
It's so depressing on here this evening. Apart from @Leon's exciting trip to the Maldives,of course.
I’m doing my best to keep spirits up
I may also be off to Australia for a free tour of the national parks around Sydney, if that helps the mood improve?
No, sorry, the Maldives is the pinnacle this evening. So far.
This is the view from my holiday cottage.
OOOOH, that's a tasty challenge, Where is that?
Clearly volcanic. yet green, yet also a tad bleak, and it's on the coast, but with apparently warm sun and another islet in the background. Slightly basic housing, but that could mean its simply exposed to harsh/shit weather so the buildings are forced to be utilitarian
So it could be one of:
Iceland Canaries Aeolians even Hawaii Azores?
Without Google "imaging", I'm gonna go with a remoter area of the Canaries, on the west coast, hence the sunset and the greenery coz it gets more rain
The police are saying there was more to it than revealed in the clip.
I do hope that is true, because otherwise this seems to have been a truly gross overreaction, but unfortunately given the recent record of the police I am not disposed to give them the benefit of the doubt.
They've issued another statement saying they've released the girl and will take no further action.
It's so depressing on here this evening. Apart from @Leon's exciting trip to the Maldives,of course.
I’m doing my best to keep spirits up
I may also be off to Australia for a free tour of the national parks around Sydney, if that helps the mood improve?
No, sorry, the Maldives is the pinnacle this evening. So far.
This is the view from my holiday cottage.
OOOOH, that's a tasty challenge, Where is that?
Clearly volcanic. yet green, yet also a tad bleak, and it's on the coast, but with apparently warm sun and another islet in the background. Slightly basic housing, but that could mean its simply exposed to harsh/shit weather so the buildings are forced to be utilitarian
So it could be one of:
Iceland Canaries Aeolians even Hawaii Azores?
Without Google "imaging", I'm gonna go with a remoter area of the Canaries, on the west coast, hence the sunset and the greenery coz it gets more rain
West Coast Ireland
Is it ever THAT volcanic? Or, indeed, sunny? That does NOT look like Connemara or Kerry, at all, to me
Despite the absence of death and some slightly better economic numbers, Omnisis shows Labour's lead at 24 points. Given the Conservatives led by 12 at the last election, that's an 18% swing from Conservative to Labour which, if repeated at the General Election,
That takes out nearly 250 Conservative seats and we can add tactical voting on top so it's looking like less than 100 survivors on the good ship Conservative Parliamentary Party.
It's just a poll in summer so not to be considered beyond that.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It is a legal obligation.
Not helped by gross underfunding of children's secure residential homes over the years, and often closures because of various abuse and grooming scandals.
Then that legal obligation has to fucking change, why should people who struggle to feed there children, house their children be forced to contribute to this?
Go on justify it most people with kids struggle as I did and often had to do without but there tax money is funding kids having 250k a year on them and you wonder why we say fuck you?
Sure, I too would far prefer to spend money on Surestart centres, Child and Adolescent Mental Health services, support for parents etc. Otherwise the costs come later and the outcomes worse.
Dont give me that shit, these kids are probably more victims of parents and none of those would work. Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for the kids. I just think 250k per child most would go no fuck off and die I am not paying my taxes for that....maybe 25k
What about expensive medical treatment for people? Want to cap this too?
The police are saying there was more to it than revealed in the clip.
I do hope that is true, because otherwise this seems to have been a truly gross overreaction, but unfortunately given the recent record of the police I am not disposed to give them the benefit of the doubt.
They've issued another statement saying they've released the girl and will take no further action.
It's so depressing on here this evening. Apart from @Leon's exciting trip to the Maldives,of course.
I’m doing my best to keep spirits up
I may also be off to Australia for a free tour of the national parks around Sydney, if that helps the mood improve?
No, sorry, the Maldives is the pinnacle this evening. So far.
This is the view from my holiday cottage.
OOOOH, that's a tasty challenge, Where is that?
Clearly volcanic. yet green, yet also a tad bleak, and it's on the coast, but with apparently warm sun and another islet in the background. Slightly basic housing, but that could mean its simply exposed to harsh/shit weather so the buildings are forced to be utilitarian
So it could be one of:
Iceland Canaries Aeolians even Hawaii Azores?
Without Google "imaging", I'm gonna go with a remoter area of the Canaries, on the west coast, hence the sunset and the greenery coz it gets more rain
West Coast Ireland
Is it ever THAT volcanic? Or, indeed, sunny? That does NOT look like Connemara or Kerry, at all, to me
Chapeau if you've nailed it. I have my doubts
It's clearly very wet to get that greenery, rocks look granite or basalt, houses are typically n Europe/GB ish, and painted white like we do not mustard and rust like the scandis
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It is a legal obligation.
Not helped by gross underfunding of children's secure residential homes over the years, and often closures because of various abuse and grooming scandals.
Then that legal obligation has to fucking change, why should people who struggle to feed there children, house their children be forced to contribute to this?
Go on justify it most people with kids struggle as I did and often had to do without but there tax money is funding kids having 250k a year on them and you wonder why we say fuck you?
Sure, I too would far prefer to spend money on Surestart centres, Child and Adolescent Mental Health services, support for parents etc. Otherwise the costs come later and the outcomes worse.
Dont give me that shit, these kids are probably more victims of parents and none of those would work. Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for the kids. I just think 250k per child most would go no fuck off and die I am not paying my taxes for that....maybe 25k
What about expensive medical treatment for people? Want to cap this too?
Yes of course. We already do don't we? You can't have unlimited state funding.
But we don't have a per person cap. This is not how we roll.
We absolutely do I think nice caps treatement at 20000k
Despite the absence of death and some slightly better economic numbers, Omnisis shows Labour's lead at 24 points. Given the Conservatives led by 12 at the last election, that's an 18% swing from Conservative to Labour which, if repeated at the General Election,
That takes out nearly 250 Conservative seats and we can add tactical voting on top so it's looking like less than 100 survivors on the good ship Conservative Parliamentary Party.
It's just a poll in summer so not to be considered beyond that.
Which even then would still leave the Tories comfortably the main opposition and Labour to deal with inflation, high interest rates and the sluggish economic growth and deficit and strikes.
In some respects that would be better for the Tories than the 165 MPs they got in 1997 where New Labour were left low inflation, a growing economy and balanced budget and few strikes.
I expect squeezeback from DKs and RefUK to the Tories still pre polling day too
Despite the absence of death and some slightly better economic numbers, Omnisis shows Labour's lead at 24 points. Given the Conservatives led by 12 at the last election, that's an 18% swing from Conservative to Labour which, if repeated at the General Election,
That takes out nearly 250 Conservative seats and we can add tactical voting on top so it's looking like less than 100 survivors on the good ship Conservative Parliamentary Party.
It's just a poll in summer so not to be considered beyond that.
If you look around the country at the moment, that lead feels … right? There’s just no love for the conservatives beyond the diehards
It's so depressing on here this evening. Apart from @Leon's exciting trip to the Maldives,of course.
I’m doing my best to keep spirits up
I may also be off to Australia for a free tour of the national parks around Sydney, if that helps the mood improve?
No, sorry, the Maldives is the pinnacle this evening. So far.
This is the view from my holiday cottage.
OOOOH, that's a tasty challenge, Where is that?
Clearly volcanic. yet green, yet also a tad bleak, and it's on the coast, but with apparently warm sun and another islet in the background. Slightly basic housing, but that could mean its simply exposed to harsh/shit weather so the buildings are forced to be utilitarian
So it could be one of:
Iceland Canaries Aeolians even Hawaii Azores?
Without Google "imaging", I'm gonna go with a remoter area of the Canaries, on the west coast, hence the sunset and the greenery coz it gets more rain
West Coast Ireland
Is it ever THAT volcanic? Or, indeed, sunny? That does NOT look like Connemara or Kerry, at all, to me
Chapeau if you've nailed it. I have my doubts
It's clearly very wet to get that greenery, rocks look granite or basalt, houses are typically n Europe/GB ish, and painted white like we do not mustard and rust like the scandis
It's so depressing on here this evening. Apart from @Leon's exciting trip to the Maldives,of course.
I’m doing my best to keep spirits up
I may also be off to Australia for a free tour of the national parks around Sydney, if that helps the mood improve?
No, sorry, the Maldives is the pinnacle this evening. So far.
This is the view from my holiday cottage.
OOOOH, that's a tasty challenge, Where is that?
Clearly volcanic. yet green, yet also a tad bleak, and it's on the coast, but with apparently warm sun and another islet in the background. Slightly basic housing, but that could mean its simply exposed to harsh/shit weather so the buildings are forced to be utilitarian
So it could be one of:
Iceland Canaries Aeolians even Hawaii Azores?
Without Google "imaging", I'm gonna go with a remoter area of the Canaries, on the west coast, hence the sunset and the greenery coz it gets more rain
West Coast Ireland
Is it ever THAT volcanic? Or, indeed, sunny? That does NOT look like Connemara or Kerry, at all, to me
Chapeau if you've nailed it. I have my doubts
Not west coast of Ireland.
It was a current picture. Yes there is old lava flows out to sea.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It is a legal obligation.
Not helped by gross underfunding of children's secure residential homes over the years, and often closures because of various abuse and grooming scandals.
Then that legal obligation has to fucking change, why should people who struggle to feed there children, house their children be forced to contribute to this?
Go on justify it most people with kids struggle as I did and often had to do without but there tax money is funding kids having 250k a year on them and you wonder why we say fuck you?
Sure, I too would far prefer to spend money on Surestart centres, Child and Adolescent Mental Health services, support for parents etc. Otherwise the costs come later and the outcomes worse.
Dont give me that shit, these kids are probably more victims of parents and none of those would work. Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for the kids. I just think 250k per child most would go no fuck off and die I am not paying my taxes for that....maybe 25k
What about expensive medical treatment for people? Want to cap this too?
Yes of course. We already do don't we? You can't have unlimited state funding.
But we don't have a per person cap. This is not how we roll.
We absolutely do I think nice caps treatement at 20000k
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Please explain how the roi is immense. It sounds like the child is costing the council 250K a year...thats a huge amount of money to make back if they are there 10 years.....it means the child needs to save the state 2.5 mill
If the council own them the money isn't going to the private profiteers, so there is a substantial saving.
The case stated said they were renting it try again
If the council is renting it, they aren't paying a private care company.
They are still paying 250k a child...how do you justify that?
It is a legal obligation.
Not helped by gross underfunding of children's secure residential homes over the years, and often closures because of various abuse and grooming scandals.
Then that legal obligation has to fucking change, why should people who struggle to feed there children, house their children be forced to contribute to this?
Go on justify it most people with kids struggle as I did and often had to do without but there tax money is funding kids having 250k a year on them and you wonder why we say fuck you?
Sure, I too would far prefer to spend money on Surestart centres, Child and Adolescent Mental Health services, support for parents etc. Otherwise the costs come later and the outcomes worse.
Dont give me that shit, these kids are probably more victims of parents and none of those would work. Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for the kids. I just think 250k per child most would go no fuck off and die I am not paying my taxes for that....maybe 25k
What about expensive medical treatment for people? Want to cap this too?
Yes of course. We already do don't we? You can't have unlimited state funding.
But we don't have a per person cap. This is not how we roll.
We absolutely do I think nice caps treatement at 20000k
Also, what kind of imbecile country would give up its independent nuclear deterrent with the prospect of Trump 2.0 in the White House in 2024? Can any nation in NATO really be sure of the American nuke umbrella under Trump?
Ok he might defend the UK because of his golf courses in Scotland or whatever but still. I’d be much less sure if I was Estonian or German or Bulgarian. Indeed I’m fairly certain Trump would NOT defend them
We gave up our independent nuclear deterrent a long time ago, when we went for Polaris.
@Stocky - Yes, this is exactly how children’s social care works right now. You can look into County Council minutes and accounts. The sums are eye-watering.
One of the smartest things Oxfordshire County Council’s rainbow alliance administration is doing, entirely unremarked by the work experience rejects that pass for the local press, is quietly buying up residential properties in villages to convert into children’s homes like this. The RoI is immense.
Thanks for this.
Do you mean actually buying the freeholds and leaving empty until required? With knowledge that planning (change of use) will be granted?
Staffed by council care workers or contracted-in from private sector?
Why villages rather than more urbanised locations?
Council care workers. They don’t need to leave them empty for long - so many children are currently being housed out of county in private facilities, and can just be brought back in to the council’s newly opened home, with the attendant massive savings. Planning permission isn’t an issue in practice.
I don’t know why villages but two guesses. Villages are by and large cheaper than Oxford itself. I suspect it’s also a more calming environment than some of the cheaper market towns.
Comments
I may also be off to Australia for a free tour of the national parks around Sydney, if that helps the mood improve?
Three beers for £5 even at Waitrose today (Abbot's ale/green king IPA etc) which still equates to £1.90 a pint, so I've sunk three of those and feeling pretty happy.
Sun's out. Economy grew today. Inflation down a bit. No-one died.
Sort of alright.
I'm not saying spending a fortune on messed up children works, or that the cost can't be cut, or that the sums add up. I don't know.
But it's plausible that this is the best value non dystopian option.
And then ask yourselves, whether anyone would notice if they ceased to receive it.
(I think there is a tendency in this field to throw money at it, by the way, but as @Stuartinromford points out above this is one where economies can easily become false economies.)
We live in one of the safest and most stable parts of the world because we have a nuclear defence, not in spite of it.
With the private sector local authority commissioners select the provider that they think is best positioned to provide the service. The child’s needs are individually assessed and a bespoke plan put in place. The costs of the plan (the bulk of which is labour) are then agreed with the authority - its entirely focused around the child’s needs. A margin is added which covers all the overheads (the companies don’t get paid differently whether they own or rent the property - it’s a question of the right property based on child’s needs).
Typically a well run company makes around an 18% margin after all overheads - reasonable but not egregious. And the children get a bespoke and effective care
package. The local authorities get a genuine partner (given that the select the providers on a case by case basis they are the customer) for whom a reputation for quality is critical.
It’s expensive but it’s the best hope we have of helping these children (and increasingly young adults) who are among the most needy in society,
Institutionalising them is a horrific approach.
The reports from some hotels were pretty horrific. Worse than prison food. And I don't think prison or some NHS or school food is nearly good enough anyway.
In any case, poor food is a serious contributor to lowered immunity to disease.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/fried-haggis
And you can buy haggis balls, from when they geld the males each year.
Some good ideas for reform on this recent Today program.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0g4vmzp
https://www.macsween.co.uk/products/delicious-every-day-vegetarian/
https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/simon-howie-vegetarian-haggis-454g?catalogId=10241&productId=81824&storeId=10151&langId=44&krypto=Dyi1cq/A4c3JDaQp1ebcojP0rLGuZAXvNBaW2VZGWdqqQUwgYlGnPZjNn0Wg2TjYqEKXnGw0imscIWAsdr4KDg11hz734gd5iOzLsoEYsqbaN3MoTsgy7uZB1Z3iGSpW2rV/ftuxkqyOhYmoEul95cSHTMdi5prS8qAUZAFunrp0hMZ/VcV+AQGLsl/8yuRfJWhLLIa3eKB9+AatAOA0CQ==&ddkey=https:gb/groceries/simon-howie-vegetarian-haggis-454g
Not sure if they are vegan, but just have some deer as well and you'll be OK.
High quality child care centres can likely reduce the adult:child ratio is implemented well, otherwise adoption or foster care brings huge (cost and social) benefits.
But we should also do more to support and educate parents, and have intervention early where necessary where the adoption option is easier.
Ultimately, the failure of politicians and society to plan for the care of children shouldn't let us abdicate our responsibilities towards children in care.
£1.90 a pint wow that's cheaper than Spoons
https://twitter.com/Gers89_/status/1163871240265838592?lang=en
Hurrah.
Also reminds me - frying a few slices of 'white pudding' in butter then stirring it through a bolognese - delicious!
Ok he might defend the UK because of his golf courses in Scotland or whatever but still. I’d be much less sure if I was Estonian or German or Bulgarian. Indeed I’m fairly certain Trump would NOT defend them
Half of the House Republican conference wrote to Merrick Garland last year asking him to appoint a special counsel in the Hunter Biden case. Now that he's done it they are acting mad, including many who signed this letter
https://twitter.com/Fritschner/status/1690057653899141123
Note David Weiss was appointed a US attorney by Trump.
T-4-4-U
He's clearly playing it for laughs, and doing it well
Also
"One up the bum, no harm done" was a meme me and my friends had at Uni. We used to do variations
"Take her from behind, she won't mind"
"Put it in the sh1tter, won't know what's 'it 'er"
"One in the colon? Stroll on"
Yes, misogynistic, vulgar, extremely juvenile and quite offensive, but we were late teen lads in the early 80s. That's how things went down, and it was fun
Talking of which, I went to a geriatric stag do the other day. Couple getting married after 35 years of cohabiting etc. At the do, I realised there were 8 guys I'd known since Uni (or the squatting years that came right after) and 4 of these ageing drunks were solid good friends, and have been all through that time. Guys I could tell anything, and vice versa. And we've been strong pals for four DECADES, and we still hang out
That's no small thing. The friends you make at Uni are so important. It also gives the lie to this feminist idea that men don't make friends. What rubbish
Measuring the value of humans according to their economic input gets my sarcasm going.
T44U is one of my best genocide jokes, I think.
https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1690014344292032512
A 16 year old autistic girl was arrested for making an allegedly homophobic remark inside her own home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_JJ38SRYjg
Please tell me if I've got this wrong.
Think of it as starter project for the Holocaust.
Not for the crimes - but for contempt.
"...By the end of the period, there is a likelihood for a more climatological regime developing..."
I do hope that is true, because otherwise this seems to have been a truly gross overreaction, but unfortunately given the recent record of the police I am not disposed to give them the benefit of the doubt.
My girlfriend worked with children in these sort of circumstances for 20 years, so I know what I am talking about. Which is the great sadness of the fact they tend to be unfixable. I don't give a toss about their economic input.
https://twitter.com/WestYorksPolice/status/1690042791395569681
£250K is the price for our humanity *and* theirs.
EDIT: a social worker once told a mother, in front of the child, in my presence that the child (mentally disabled) shouldn’t have been born. I was surprised the social worker was uninjured.
Now that's possible - but at the moment the police's behaviour in so many areas has been such you can't really say it's probable.
Clearly volcanic. yet green, yet also a tad bleak, and it's on the coast, but with apparently warm sun and another islet in the background. Slightly basic housing, but that could mean its simply exposed to harsh/shit weather so the buildings are forced to be utilitarian
So it could be one of:
Iceland
Canaries
Aeolians
even Hawaii
Azores?
Without Google "imaging", I'm gonna go with a remoter area of the Canaries, on the west coast, hence the sunset and the greenery coz it gets more rain
Genocide jokes are how we roll.
My favourite is still the watchtower joke - as told by the Chief Rabbi of Northern Ireland. Which had its own, rich, dark comedy as a position, when you think of it.
Chapeau if you've nailed it. I have my doubts
Despite the absence of death and some slightly better economic numbers, Omnisis shows Labour's lead at 24 points. Given the Conservatives led by 12 at the last election, that's an 18% swing from Conservative to Labour which, if repeated at the General Election,
That takes out nearly 250 Conservative seats and we can add tactical voting on top so it's looking like less than 100 survivors on the good ship Conservative Parliamentary Party.
It's just a poll in summer so not to be considered beyond that.
In some respects that would be better for the Tories than the 165 MPs they got in 1997 where New Labour were left low inflation, a growing economy and balanced budget and few strikes.
I expect squeezeback from DKs and RefUK to the Tories still pre polling day too
It was a current picture. Yes there is old lava flows out to sea.
I don’t know why villages but two guesses. Villages are by and large cheaper than Oxford itself. I suspect it’s also a more calming environment than some of the cheaper market towns.