Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Glasgow Boards/Forums _ Glasgow News Blog _ Councillor Plans To Axe Children's Fruit

Posted by: GG 29th Aug 2010, 11:25am

Maggie Thatcher took their milk. Now, a senior councillor at Glasgow City Council intends to take fresh fruit out of the mouths of the city's youngest children. Gordon Matheson, the man who replaced Steven Purcell as leader of the country's biggest council, has announced that he plans to take the 'tough' decision of removing regular free fruit for primary school children.

The fresh fruit initiative was launched for youngsters in Glasgow schools almost a decade ago and has proved highly popular, with health professionals claiming that the scheme has been helping address the problems caused by the poor diet of Glasgow children.


Research has consistently found that giving young children fruit early in their lives leads to long-term improvements in nutritional intake, bringing long-lasting health and wellbeing benefits. The council itself claims that the initiative boosts energy levels in children, meaning they will "perform better in class".

The move to cut free fresh fruit from children's diets is expected to save the council 1.8million from a gross service expenditure budget of 2.5billion.

The 'Fruit Plus' programme is highlighted on the council website:
QUOTE
All primary school pupils in Glasgow get free, fresh fruit every school day.

The different types of fruit you might be given includes apples, oranges, grapes, bananas and pears.

Not only does it taste great but it is also really good for you. Fruit can boost your memory meaning your performance will improve in class. It also gives you lots of vitamins helping you to stay fit and stopping you from getting ill.

Announcing the plan for the cut, which directly contradicts one the council's key spending priorities of "improving health and wellbeing", Councillor Matheson said:
QUOTE
What we will do is ensure the quality of teaching and learning in Glasgow is protected.

Writing in the Glasgow Guide guestbook shortly after the proposed cut was announced in the Evening Times, a concerned visitor wrote:
QUOTE
I wish to hear from Councillor Matheson on his reason to cut giving out fruit to primary school children.

He must have saved a tenner! Why not cut out the free drinks and food to councillors and ex-councillors. That would save Glasgow at least 2 million a year!

They have large pensions as well, which should be reduced !

Earlier this month, senior councillors were criticised for spending thousands of pounds on entertaining politicians and business contacts at the Glasgow Show. During the event, invited councillors, MSPs, other guests and their families were treated to complimentary alcohol and food.


GG.

Posted by: big tommy 29th Aug 2010, 12:20pm

AS usual it is the ones who need things most who will suffer .It is an easy option to deprive children of needed help.
It has got to be stopped at ALL costs.
Surely it is wrong to take food out of our childrens mouths
Tommy

Posted by: George Brown 29th Aug 2010, 01:11pm

Surely the provision of fruit is an education itself, pupils who wouldn't normally, can sample, touch, taste and smell varieties of fruit otherwise related to in pictures and appreciate that there is more to life than the traditional jeelly piece and sweeties.

My grand daughter has been fortunate that, although she got fruit whilst in primary school I was able to grow some fruit and vegetables as well as taking her to pick apples from a tree, prior to that revelation she was under the impression that they just came from a shop.

Margaret Thatcher was responsible for igniting political interest in my daughter at an early age, when school milk was stopped my daughter never forgave her nor the policies she represented, and after all these years has never changed.

Posted by: Heather 29th Aug 2010, 01:39pm

A typical Council decision to take from the poorest children. mad.gif

It would save more money if they cut the Quango's and the money they pay themselves to sit in on them lining their own pockets.
They could also cut some of their travels to see how another Country does what so ever.


Posted by: Rob Rattray 29th Aug 2010, 01:40pm

Totally agree with George Brown's statement, and as far as gear Mr Matheson [can think of more befitting names that would NOT be becoming on this forum] is concerned; just because he did not have fruit available to him in his younger days at school, if he WAS schooled at all i.e., that has nothing to do with today! A better thought would be to curtail these pollies 'fringe' benefits which would save the Council absolute millions - most aren't worth a pinch o' salt anyway!

Posted by: beth 29th Aug 2010, 02:13pm

But did he have milk? This story really makes me sad. Some children don't get fruit at home and grow up passing this onto their children. Some children don't get breakfast and this fruit is possibly the only bit of real nourishment they will get. Are there still free dinners for those in need?. I remember from our school days (long ago) how much some children benefited from our wee bottle of milk.These same fatcats have big expense accounts paid by the taxpayers. How do they have the guts to bill something like this.

Posted by: ladihelen 29th Aug 2010, 03:05pm

Papers to-day say the EU are involved as the Scottish Parliament got the cash (or were about to ) from them. Only Westminster say they would dock 3/4 of that money as they have to pay the EU for the SP borrowing it or have I read it all wrong Looks to me as if we are not allowed anything good from Westminster and there goes another two faced article joining the Lords
Are they all in it for the celebrety (sp)
years ago I remember St Pauls Provanmill aquiring fruit cheaply for the residents of that area and thought then "Great Idea" .......

Adding to the ire if I see another smarmy photograph of that child with her muling pewking father I'll throw up Many other babies were born at the same time .....gies a brek

Posted by: benny 29th Aug 2010, 03:06pm

Now, be reasonable - no-one can expect our councillors to abolish their own perks. That would make being a councillor unattractive and discourage people of the present high calibre from standing in future. Aye, ye're right - ah am kiddin. biggrin.gif

Not only are Glasgow Council depriving kids of their fruit, but they have started charging 20 for the disabled Blue Badge, which was previously issued free. I sent an email to my councillor - "Guess who won't be voting for you next election?"

Posted by: Jupiter 29th Aug 2010, 04:18pm

I think it is a sad day when this sort of thing is announced and hope that it doesnt take place but as I said a few months ago things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.Looking at the big picture it would appear that there is such a massive budget deficit throughout the country that savings will have to be made.The well has run dry.
Ive just had a chat with a lady who does the milk and fruit order at a Glasgow school and she says the amount of wastage is incredible. Many kids have an aversion to fruit and milk ,especially milk as it isnt fizzy and out a plastic bottle.
As regarding kids missing out I would suggest to parents that fruit isnt that expensive and is a small price to pay towards their kids wellbeing.
Joop.

Posted by: *Harry Greenwood* 29th Aug 2010, 05:13pm

Should such a edict ben presented to any Council here in Canada, the mothers' of all affected would be occupying the Council Chambers en-masse'! Do the residents of Glasgow require assistance in Community organizing?

Posted by: clyderunner1 29th Aug 2010, 05:51pm

What a pity.

I know I'm not A Scot, but my wife's families all live in Glasgow, but I do know politicians and Government and the UK's leadership is too much acting like ours.

Said it before in the seventies and now, the UK governments are too much influenced by the leadership of Washington, D.C.

Hell, I thought Thatcher and Reagan, well you all get my drift.

Try and vote these idiots out of office, we will try in November to get rid of ours.

Stop this global New World Order, fruit distribution end is just a view into what you all are in for.

The Virginian

Posted by: Jupiter 29th Aug 2010, 06:08pm

Clyderunner in the 70s there was but one Government in the UK.
Now Scotland has its own Government and it makes decisions in a place called Holyrood not by kowtowing to any foreign governments.
This Government is doing its best in the circumstances to balance the books.The proposal to end the fruit distribution is a foretaste of what is to come.You are correct in that assertion.
Just a shame that the financial regulators in the US didnt have a greater grip on the likes of Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac et al.Then we and the rest of the planet might not have slipped into this financial meltdown.
Who exactly are the idiots you are urging to be voted out of office?

Posted by: CAMPSIE 29th Aug 2010, 07:19pm

What I cant understand is why they appear not to realise that by giving the children fruit now it encourages them to have a healthier eating life style for the future, which in return means better health so less money is spent on healing aliments. I also think they should reinstate free milk for all primary school children throughout the UK. This would give them an even better start, we to to make positive investment in our children to ensure a better future for the country, they are our future after all, so come on all you councillors and MP's start at the foundations.

CAMPSIE

Posted by: *Waverley* 29th Aug 2010, 07:23pm

Typical of people in high places take from the kids then they can have cream douhnuts instead of plain ones.

But lets be reasonable what test have been carried out to check wastage and are the children allowed to refuse if they are intolerant to fresh food we need a breakdown of facts and figures to give a reasonable assess of the whole thing.

Posted by: AGNES AND ROBERT 29th Aug 2010, 08:08pm

QUOTE (*Waverley* @ 29th Aug 2010, 08:25pm) *
Typical of people in high places take from the kids then they can have cream douhnuts instead of plain ones.

But lets be reasonable what test have been carried out to check wastage and are the children allowed to refuse if they are intolerant to fresh food we need a breakdown of facts and figures to give a reasonable assess of the whole thing.

The corruption, theft and incompetence that is going on in Britain today is utterly disgusting, the more these creatures cut back and take from the working man, the more they can thieve from the taxpayer for their expenses, every last corrupt pieces of scum should be fired without golden handshakes and large pensions, kick them out on the street, better still send them to Afghanistan to walk in front of the trucks when our troops are on patrol.

Posted by: GG 29th Aug 2010, 08:11pm

QUOTE (ladihelen @ 29th Aug 2010, 04:07pm) *
Papers to-day say the EU are involved as the Scottish Parliament got the cash (or were about to ) from them. Only Westminster say they would dock 3/4 of that money as they have to pay the EU for the SP borrowing it or have I read it all wrong ...

Hi Ladihelen,

I read that article (in the Sunday Post?) after I wrote this story. I believe the Sunday Post article, 'SNP go bananas at EU free fruit clawback', relates to a Scotland-wide initiative which is separate from the Fruit Plus programme started (to its very considerable credit) by Glasgow City Council. Other local authorities have looked at the success of Fruit Plus and some have initiated their own free fruit schemes, while the Scottish Government recently applied for EU funding but later withdrew its application after it emerged that the Westimnster Treasury would clawback 72% of any money granted by the EU.

The Sunday Post article is not available online, however, a PA news article covering the same story can be viewed here:

http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/national/red_tape_blamed_over_free_fruit_1_985339

GG.

Posted by: michael 29th Aug 2010, 08:25pm

I’ve always believed school children should receive all meals FREE, that includes milk, orange juice and a fruit.

If Councillor Matheson wants save money then let him take a tough stand with his cronies who are STILL taking from the taxpayer. In my opinion, there are far too many 'extravagant' councillors on Glasgow City Council wasting money on their expenses and office supplies etc. Maybe the councillors could take pay-cut, that way the children could still have their fruit. If he does take the fruit away, we all can show him and labour how we feel at the next election.

Posted by: fefe55 29th Aug 2010, 08:26pm

The usual "Dick Turpin" style, rob the poor, give to the rich...

Why am I not surprised? Hell mend the A"%^S who voted this load of swines into power, obviously, Thatcherism was forgotten on polling day, now we are landed with them for god only knows how long.

I have no time for polititians, councillors, MP's etc, I think that they are just a bunch of human parasites who feed on others misfortunes and promise you everything to get a seat, then conveniently forget that you got them there, should be like a job, with a 13 week trial, if you dont live up to what you promised, you should be fired.

Posted by: GG 29th Aug 2010, 08:30pm

I found an interesting quote on the Fruit Plus initiative from a headteacher of a Glasgow primary school. In 2006, when the free fruit initiative provided its 40 millionth piece of fruit to Glasgow school kids, Headteacher Evelyn Gibson of Saracen Primary in Possilpark described how the scheme had educational as well as health benefits.

Pre-empting George Brown's comment above, Ms Gibson said:

QUOTE
"The programme is backed up with a curriculum pack for teachers to use.

As well as learning about the nutritional benefits of individual fruit they learn about where they are grown and how they are harvested. It has been a fantastic success. Some pupils were unsure about what a melon was and when they were given kiwi fruit for the first time most didn't know what to do with it.

We have found out parents and children have been discussing diet and health more at home since the programme began."

GG.

Posted by: Guest 30th Aug 2010, 05:52am

Why is it my responsibility to feed other people's kids?

Posted by: Melody 30th Aug 2010, 07:39am

Well Guest you presumably are a member of the human race that's why. In order for the human race to survive we have to take responsibily for each other and if some of us are in need then it's your duty as a member to help provide where possible for those in need. Unless you want to live on a desert island then you can fend for yourself.

Posted by: Guest 30th Aug 2010, 08:11am

The scheme to give fruit to school children in Glasgow is not currently confined to "needy" areas of the city.

A large proportion of my taxes go to help the needy in our society and I believe that to be right and proper. I do not need my taxes to be used to provide fruit for children whose parents can well afford to provide for their own off-spring.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 30th Aug 2010, 11:21am

QUOTE (Guest @ 30th Aug 2010, 07:54am) *
Why is it my responsibility to feed other people's kids?


This is the problem we have in our society. ‘I’m all right, why should I worry about anyone else’ – ‘The Tory way’

Posted by: droschke7 30th Aug 2010, 12:20pm

QUOTE (Guest @ 30th Aug 2010, 07:54am) *
Why is it my responsibility to feed other people's kids?


After what the Government has done to the pension funds, these kids that are at school now are going to be paying our Pensions.

Posted by: michael 30th Aug 2010, 12:43pm

Roll on election time, we can save money by getting rid of people like Matheson for good.

Posted by: Jupiter 30th Aug 2010, 01:15pm

Michael,get rid of Mathieson by all means but who or what will replace him and where will the newcomers get the money from?
The country is mired in debt and Im sure that there is worse to come,far worse that a child not getting an apple or an orange.
I think this will pale into insignificance when the forthcoming budget is made public.
I recall one report pre -election that basically said that the next government elected(Turns out to be the Coalition) will only last the one term because of the unpopular decisions affecting every person in the country which will have to be made.Im due a concession ticket in January but Im no holding my breath.
Cheers,
Joop.

Posted by: Guest 30th Aug 2010, 04:40pm

The problem we have in our society is that we are breeding a culture of dependence. This inevitably corrodes any spirit of enterprise or work ethic. By all means let us help those in genuine need but in the austere times to come we need to get our priorities in order. Let us limit our assistance to those who need it and not dole out fruit, free meals or milk to those whose parents can afford to provide for their own children.

Posted by: benny 30th Aug 2010, 06:34pm

Ah've been hearin prophecies of Britain's impending doom fur the past 50 odd years. Frae Anthony Eden's prophecy that Britain wid be ruined by losin the Suez Canal, tae dire warnings aboot the stranglehold the fabled Gnomes Of Zurich wance excercised oan the economy. They aw turned oot tae be a loada piffle. We're no only still here, but almost everybody in the country is better aff materially than they were even 20 years ago. Ah don't expect the present economic crisis tae be any worse than the wans we've experienced in the past - we'll get ower it eventually.

Merr tae the point, the people who caused it aw - the bankers (naw,that's no rhymin slang) an the fatcat company directors who award themselves enormous bonuses seem tae be the only people who remain unaffected by it. When we've got oor backs tae the wall, it seems tae be only the ordinary punter who his tae tighten his belt, an put his elbow tae the wheel an nose tae the grindstone. Mebbe we should think aboot a 99% tax rate fur these modern robber barons.

Posted by: Cate Ferguson 30th Aug 2010, 09:41pm

I watched a programme recently about the amount of food wasted in the UK on a daily basis. Maybe we could organise collection of apples and pears that are allowed to rot in the gardens of rich folk who can't be bothered to pick them.


Posted by: Guest #2 30th Aug 2010, 10:06pm

QUOTE (Guest @ 30th Aug 2010, 05:42pm) *
The problem we have in our society is that we are breeding a culture of dependence. This inevitably corrodes any spirit of enterprise or work ethic. By all means let us help those in genuine need but in the austere times to come we need to get our priorities in order. Let us limit our assistance to those who need it and not dole out fruit, free meals or milk to those whose parents can afford to provide for their own children.

You are wrong. The problem we have in our society is that the inequality of opportunity in Glasgow corrodes and destroys the spirit of our young people.

Over the weekend our papers were gushing in the praise heaped on the Higher success rates of private schools in the city, e.g. hooray for the High School of Glasgow as it achieved a pass rate of over 95%. In some of Glasgow City Council schools less than 1% of pupils will pass 5 Highers.

Our children are not stupid. They know when they have been let down, and let down very, very badly. Perhaps Baillie Matheson should bear this in mind when he thinks about his brutal cuts to an impoverished, inadequate and already-struggling education system in this city.

Posted by: wellfield 31st Aug 2010, 03:42am

No matter where in the World you live,you must VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

Posted by: Guest 31st Aug 2010, 05:25am

QUOTE
...impoverished, inadequate and already-struggling education system in this city.

Perhaps that is a good case for diverting funds into front line education services like teachers and teaching materials and allowing parents to provide the kiwi fruit. But isn't that what Baillie Matheson is doing?

Posted by: joe kearns 31st Aug 2010, 06:36am

So a few people are not in favour of subsidised food to children !

Then what about our councillors and ex-councillors, they are given highly subsidised food and drink. They take it as a right ( perk ) If it was stoped they would expect a PAY INCREASE. One told me he would have to go around charity shops for clothes for the winter. Ops welcome to the real world.

Posted by: CAMPSIE 31st Aug 2010, 04:52pm

QUOTE (Guest @ 30th Aug 2010, 06:54am) *
Why is it my responsibility to feed other people's kids?

It's not your responsiblity to feed other people's kids, but these kids are our future and if we can help them make healthier choices for themselves the cost comes later with less ailments later. Have you heard of 'the cup of human kindness' let's hope you or yours are never in need.

Posted by: bilbo.s 31st Aug 2010, 05:10pm

QUOTE (fefe55 @ 29th Aug 2010, 11:28pm) *
The usual "Dick Turpin" style, rob the poor, give to the rich...

Why am I not surprised? Hell mend the A"%^S who voted this load of swines into power, obviously, Thatcherism was forgotten on polling day, now we are landed with them for god only knows how long.

I have no time for polititians, councillors, MP's etc, I think that they are just a bunch of human parasites who feed on others misfortunes and promise you everything to get a seat, then conveniently forget that you got them there, should be like a job, with a 13 week trial, if you dont live up to what you promised, you should be fired.

While I agree with your sentiments regarding politicians in general., I must have missed the tories gaining control of Glasgow City Council.

Posted by: ashfield 31st Aug 2010, 05:35pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 31st Aug 2010, 07:12pm) *
While I agree with your sentiments regarding politicians in general., I must have missed the tories gaining control of Glasgow City Council.

Mair chance of the Klingons getting control than the tories rolleyes.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 31st Aug 2010, 05:51pm

QUOTE (ashfield @ 31st Aug 2010, 08:37pm) *
Mair chance of the Klingons getting control than the tories rolleyes.gif

Klingon rule ? Surely worth a try ! Could it be any worse ? laugh.gif

Posted by: auldbutcher 31st Aug 2010, 07:31pm

I remember when i wis at school the poor wee buggers that wore the parish claes wie there herringbone pattern these poor wee devils stood oot like a sore erse they got free meals an aw ,but i wonder what would have happened if a cold blooded eejit like Mathison had abeen in charge o cooncil policies at that time .

These same people who always seem tae be flying o ower the world on some so called junket or other ''at the tax peyer's bluddy expense '' and who are never slow to claim there expenses be they genuine or not ,are not slow when it comes tae axein some sort o monies set aside fer the benefit o the aged or in this case the young,lets face it theres some kids who come fae certain kinds o backgrounds where any monies that are goin in there homes are spent on mammy an daddy,s fags, alcohol and bingo nights... These kids widnae know the taste o an apple or an orange if not fer this wee handoot , so shame on people like Mr Matty stone hearted numpties like him iwies seem tae wangle there wie intae soft cushy jobs.

An ahm afraid things are only gonna get worse,jasus on reflection we now have the Torys back in power and there latest policies urnae lookin too good there efter my bus pass, there efter my heating allowance ,whit next, asked tae sweep mah street wance a week so saving the cost o overtime fer oor overextended clenny department mad.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: *Crighton* 31st Aug 2010, 09:38pm

Instead of Counsillors spending the money on free junkets abroad to look at how other inner cities work - ie free trips to nice cities- and fancy council cars to take them up the street and back, freeby lunches etc let the children get their free fruit to educate them about healthy eating etc. My 8 year old gets her free fruit and counts it in with her 5 a day, she knows healthy eating reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes etc already at age 8. What else worthwhile do the Counsillors do? They don't provide proper PE teachers in every school if the numbers don't tally, they don't provide music lessons in certain schools whereas others benefit greatly from this. So for goodness sake keep up the free fruit and give us something worthwhile from your ridiculous decision making policies. Your destroying the goodness we have built up in this Country. The NHS is on its knees and now the schools are heading the same way. We no longer are the envy of other countries we are to be pitied with our poor, uneducated idiots who think they are running the country, pathetic fools that they are who presume to bully us into submission in every walk of life nowadays.

Posted by: don.stuart 31st Aug 2010, 10:22pm

What kind of people are they who vote to take apples from the mouths of kids.MPs Councillors, CEOs all have their fingers in the pie and never a word of cuts from them. Sports people get disgustingly huge amounts of money, and no doubt millions in aid are sent abroad yet we deprive our own school kids. The Councillors should be lynched.

Posted by: *greumach* 31st Aug 2010, 11:29pm

Scotland - one of the oil rich countries of the world - and LABOUR politicians pulling the plug on one of the most successful schemes for giving kids who need it some source of nutrition and well being! - But the numpties will go on voting them in!

Posted by: Jupiter 1st Sep 2010, 12:48am

The people who vote to make decisions are the very ones voted in by your ordinary Joe.I dont think it would matter which political party was in power just now as they all would be faced with the same stark fact that there is no money in the pot.The well is dry,the pies just an empty casing.
What do you do when you have no money?You cant spend it.What if your credit card is maxed out?No more credit.Thats the reality of life in the UK now.If the council is bringing in for example 50000 a year and its expenditure is 55000 it is going to have to make cuts to balance the books and repay the interest on the accrued debts.
No more tick.
Credit crunch.
Fruit for the kids?Im all for it but if a parent thinks its so important for a childs development,and it is,well the parents should supply it.Its not the most expensive commodity in the world and the parents will get that additional buzz of contributing to their childs welfare.
My kids had a piece of fruit in their lunch box every day,no big issue there.They would,undoubtedly have liked a mars bar or a crunchie every day but that was an occasional special treat.
Joop

Posted by: benny 1st Sep 2010, 08:42am

If there's nae money in the pot, then we should stop the people wi ladles frae dippin intae it before we stop the people wi teaspoons. When Glesga cooncillors gie up their ain perks an stop fritterin public money away oan festivals like Glasgay, time enough tae start thinkin aboot takin food frae the mouths o weans.

Posted by: Jupiter 1st Sep 2010, 08:55am

Im interested to know exactly what it is that councillors do to fritter away money.I certainly dont think that pulling funds from a parade(if they do) would make any difference.
I do think that parents should step in and ensure their kids have a bit of fruit.Simple solution for this situation.

Posted by: Elma 1st Sep 2010, 06:03pm

Exactly Joop, thank goodness for the voice of reason.

Posted by: droschke7 2nd Sep 2010, 11:58am

Isn't it amazing that the Glasgow Council can afford to help pay for the Popes visit, but they can't afford to give the underprivilaged school kids free fruit?

Posted by: Jupiter 2nd Sep 2010, 01:22pm

Could it be that the council takes the view that many Glaswegians and others of the Roman Catholic faith will benefit from the spiritual benefit they will attain by a visit from the head of their church?
I for one (and I am non religion) could not have any reservations about the visit.The benefit will be something that money cant buy.
I hope that the many posters here from the Catholic religion have a great experience when the Pope comes to town.
Joop.

Posted by: Guest #2 2nd Sep 2010, 07:49pm

QUOTE (Guest @ 31st Aug 2010, 06:27am) *
Perhaps that is a good case for diverting funds into front line education services like teachers and teaching materials and allowing parents to provide the kiwi fruit....

You're quite clearly not reading what has been written here. Providing free fresh fruit for children in Glasgow has been scientifically proven by experts in public health to lead to the development of adults who lead healthier lifestyles and therefore are less reliant on the state. Thus .... providing fruit to nippers actually saves you, me and society money in the long term!!! Plus .... it improves the quality of lives of the children/adults into the bargain.

As for the greed of Glasgow councillors .... here's a wee extract from The Herald newspaper editorial opinion from July 2010:

QUOTE
The sum of 20,000 or so may not be a vast amount of money but in the case of six Glasgow councillors it amounts to a sickening death spasm (we hope the last) of a political power structure based on a culture of greed.... This would be unacceptable at any time but when the council is facing severe budget cuts it suggests that the culture of self-interest generated by the payments to Aleo directors has yet to be replaced by one of identifying unnecessary costs to ensure all available funds are directed to vital services.... All councillors owe their position to the simple fact that they are elected to represent the view of their constituents. That should inform every decision they take. Those who treat taxpayers, council staff and constituents with contempt can hardly complain if that is returned with interest through the ballot box.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-view/the-death-spasms-of-a-culture-of-greed-1.1043580


Posted by: Guest #2 3rd Sep 2010, 07:07am

From the Scottish Daily Telegraph yesterday ....

QUOTE
"More than a hundred senior executives at Scotland’s largest local authority will receive average ‘golden goodbyes’ of 128,000 each as part of a 127 million redundancy package.

"Labour-run Glasgow City Council has agreed to pay 13 million to 102 chiefs who have volunteered to retire early under a radical cost-cutting scheme drawn up to prepare looming spending cuts.

"A third of the most senior staff, who earn between 47,292 and 132,013, have applied to leave early and are to receive up to 30 months’ salary, depending on their length of service."

Posted by: Jupiter 3rd Sep 2010, 08:12am

Its good to see that many staff members,probably all long serving local government officials are accepting the terms offered and thus helping the budget deficit.
Hopefully the individuals who are under retirement age get fixed up with new jobs.
Joop.

Posted by: benny 3rd Sep 2010, 03:58pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 1st Sep 2010, 10:57am) *
Im interested to know exactly what it is that councillors do to fritter away money.I certainly dont think that pulling funds from a parade(if they do) would make any difference.
I do think that parents should step in and ensure their kids have a bit of fruit.Simple solution for this situation.

From the Council' own website at http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/ArtsDevelopment/Grants/Culturalgrants.htm

Glasgow Arts manages the Cultural Grants programme on behalf of Glasgow City Council. In this financial year (2010/11) awards totalling 2,943,650 have been made and the scheme is now closed. The 2011/12 scheme will be announced in the autumn.

If things are really so desperate, why spend almost 3 million quid on handouts for the arts? If people want art, let them buy it for themselves, the same as you recommend doing for the kid's fruit. And why not save even more by abolishing the libraries as well - people can always buy their own books.

Posted by: Jupiter 3rd Sep 2010, 04:20pm

I note the grant is for arts activity for the benefit of the citizens of Glasgow and children among others.
Most people do buy arts at theatres cinemas etc and this grant ensures that kids and others less well off obtain concessions.When you forsake art and culture thats when a society is really hitting rock bottom as Hitler, Stalin to name but two proves.
As for the topic on hand I still maintain that parents should be able to provide fruit for their kids.It is well known the health benefits of fresh fruit and vegetable.

Posted by: Tori G 4th Sep 2010, 06:26am

Not good enough!! Sir and Madam Councillors, I wonder if they have ever heard of the term.... "Indian Giver's". If its true, that doing this, helps to bring the Pope to Glasgow ( or at least one of the reasons ) I wonder what the Pope would have to say if he knew?

Certainly parents should send their children to school with food in their bellies and food for play and lunch times too, though if parents are'nt able to do so, then the school should provide, or at least organise some sort of school breakfast club where volunteers and donations from richer business and community members maybe able to provide.

Maybe some councillors should care a little more, (and not take all the time) as not all parents are able to feed their children breakfast or lunch for whatever reason they have. Find out which underprivilaged children truly need help first.

Posted by: GG 4th Sep 2010, 08:29am

Some posts have referred to scientific evidence supporting the provision of free fresh fruit to young children; searching for the most recent evidence, I found the following article published in the Cambridge Journal of Public Health Nutrition.

QUOTE
A multilevel analysis of diet and socio-economic status in Scotland: investigating the ‘Glasgow effect’
Linsay Gray and Alastair H Leyland, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences
Published 25 November 2008

Although the article is concerned with investigating "differences between dietary habits in Glasgow and those in the rest of Scotland and the role that socio-economic factors have in explaining these", the conclusion clearly advocates the continued existence of 'targeted interventions' such as the free fresh fruit programme:

QUOTE
Thus more should be done to reduce the social inequalities in healthy eating in Glasgow; recognizing the area’s distinct demographics and their association with low consumption of healthy food such as high-fibre breads and cereals may be useful in customizing improved diet programmes. Furthermore, policy makers addressing issues relating specifically to the Glasgow area should also be aware of the need to encourage a higher consumption of nutritious foods, such as vegetables, and lower intake of butter and salt across the entire social spectrum. Although some characteristics of the diet in Glasgow – for instance, higher poultry and skimmed/semi-skimmed milk consumption – can be considered positive, in general – whether mediated by socio-economic factors for some foods, or in relation to all social groups for others – diet was poorer in the area compared with the rest of the country. Improving Glasgow’s health thus remains inextricably linked to tackling the problems associated with deprivation and poverty, but targeted interventions are also required.

GG.

Posted by: Jupiter 4th Sep 2010, 08:41am

If Im reading and understanding Tori G it is that the council has done some sort of balancing act to bring the Pope to Scotland and I dont accept this.I beleieve the Popes decision to come to Scotland is purely based on religion and that any country in the world with Roman Catholics among the population would welcome him warmly.This is the case here.
Re the topic in question I fully agree that fruit is essential to a childs development but also take the view that it is a parents foremost responsibilty that the child obtains a balanced diet.
I know that many children have parents who are sick or unemployed and am also aware that benefits are paid to such families.Fruit should certainly be in their shopping lists.
I think the underlying theme in these posts is that what was something for nothing is now in danger of being stopped and that kids will suffer.My view is that they wont suffer if their parents step in.

Posted by: GG 4th Sep 2010, 09:01am

I hope you are correct, Jupiter, that parents can and will step in (if the plan to cut is approved by the council's Executive Committee). It is interesting to note that Glasgow's poor diet exists (as the above report concludes) across the entire social spectrum in the city, part of the http://discuss.glasgowguide.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=18386'. Undoubtedly, there are many, many parents in Glasgow who can afford to provide fresh fruit for their children, but don't.

GG.

Posted by: droschke7 4th Sep 2010, 12:39pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 4th Sep 2010, 10:43am) *
If Im reading and understanding Tori G it is that the council has done some sort of balancing act to bring the Pope to Scotland and I dont accept this.I beleieve the Popes decision to come to Scotland is purely based on religion and that any country in the world with Roman Catholics among the population would welcome him warmly.This is the case here.
Re the topic in question I fully agree that fruit is essential to a childs development but also take the view that it is a parents foremost responsibilty that the child obtains a balanced diet.
I know that many children have parents who are sick or unemployed and am also aware that benefits are paid to such families.Fruit should certainly be in their shopping lists.
I think the underlying theme in these posts is that what was something for nothing is now in danger of being stopped and that kids will suffer.My view is that they wont suffer if their parents step in.

15% of the population are catholic but 100% of the children will be denied fruit. doesn't seem fair does it?

Posted by: Jupiter 4th Sep 2010, 04:14pm

"15% of the population are catholic but 100% of the children will be denied fruit.Doesnt seem fair does it?"
This must rank as one of the most way out post Ive ever read here.Can someone do me a favour and tell me what the correlation is? Its beyond my comprehension.Doh!
????

Posted by: *Leo* 4th Sep 2010, 05:10pm

Did so-called councillors evaluate what are the costs of obesity and over-weight for the State ? Even on a strictly financial point of view this plan is a total nonsense.



Posted by: droschke7 4th Sep 2010, 07:29pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 4th Sep 2010, 06:16pm) *
"15% of the population are catholic but 100% of the children will be denied fruit.Doesnt seem fair does it?"
This must rank as one of the most way out post Ive ever read here.Can someone do me a favour and tell me what the correlation is? Its beyond my comprehension.Doh!
????

The correlation is that the council can afford to help pay for the Popes visit but apparently can't afford to pay for fruit for the kids.

Posted by: Jupiter 4th Sep 2010, 08:27pm

It is a well known fact that many people are against the Popes visit for their own reasons but Ive yet to hear of anyone suggesting that the Popes visit will be funded by cash from the council budget intended for fruit.I think that the old prejudices are surfacing here although I dont expect anyone to agree with me.

Posted by: MEchippie 4th Sep 2010, 09:01pm

Hi,

You are making a big mistake ... the Children of today are your Healthy People of tomorrow!

Margaret.

Posted by: wombat 4th Sep 2010, 09:12pm

biggrin.gif there yie have it,short and sweet, free fruit fer the kids,make sure they get bananas included in the mix.

Posted by: Jupiter 4th Sep 2010, 11:29pm

Where`s the big mistake?I live near a secondary school and can see that a high proportion of the kids are well overweight and furthermore know for a fact that a large number of kids at present in one school turn up their noses at fruit and milk despite the fact it is free.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 5th Sep 2010, 12:32am

I do think that parents should step in and ensure their kids have a bit of fruit.Simple solution for this situation. Says Joop

So this is simply saying: If the kids have inadequate parents - or parents who can't afford the fruit - 'Not my problem, my kids have fruit, so what do I care about these other kids with worthless parents'
Aye, I'm sure you would have agreed the 'Workhouses' of Victorian times was a 'Simple solution'

Posted by: tamhickey 5th Sep 2010, 02:34am

It seems to be the accepted wisdom that we must all suffer from the cuts which are to befall us, but why? The Governments own figures in the GERS report show that Scotland was in surplus to the tune of some 1.3 billion in the last fiscal year.
When next you hear of politicians rubbishing our nation as "subsidy junkies", feel free to point out that we Scots are the ones subsidising the UK treasury.
Perhaps if we had some measure of Independence, we would not have to see councils scurrying around making ill considered decisions such as this.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 5th Sep 2010, 08:23am

It seems to be the accepted wisdom that we must all suffer from the cuts which are to befall us,
- well not all, Tamhickey; mostly wage earners and kids who are not as fortunate as Jupiter's kids rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 5th Sep 2010, 08:53am

The major problem the U.K. has, as I've indicated before, is that the basis of it's ecconomy relied for centuries on selling to and 'taking' from lands it conquered. In the post WW2 era it lost these markets. It had no experience of competeing in a commerical world; relied, arrogantly on 'British is best' to survive. Even treats the E.U. - which is now it's biggest export market - with contempt.
Why U.K. will be 'last' out of recession
U.S. has a similar problem; treating the world with contempt.

Posted by: Jupiter 5th Sep 2010, 09:26am

Tommy, Ive put down my views regarding this subject which also encroaches on to the topic of benefits.
Im all for people in need of benefit getting their full entitlement.I have no problem there.
What I am saying is there is a vast number of people benefit dependant taking everything that is going and they have under various Governments been allowed to do this.
This coalition government,rightly or wrongly and guided I think by Iain Duncan Smith have decided that the 26 billion a year paid out in benefit will have to be reined in and they are targeting every aspect of the benefit system so I think it is fair to say that for people who do live a life on welfare benefits that radical change is coming whether they agree or not.I really hope that genuine cases do not suffer.
My kids,Tommy, were not fortunate.My wife and I have brains and we both recognise the benefits to be got from fruit.The information was freely available everywhere from schools to doctors surgeries.We just happened to take it up and follow it and it didnt cost a bomb,in fact it was a very small part of our budget.The apple or orange in their lunch box every day could easily have been a bar of chocolate.
So it will be interesting to see what the outcome will be if sadly the fruit in schools gets cut.Will all the shouters replace it from their own purse? Somehow I dont think so .
Tommy,I keep my posts impersonal but as you are putting words in my mouth and implying that I am uncaring toward children and adopt an Im alright Jack attitude I would like to put you right there.
As the husband of a registered childminder we have had children in our home over the last 20 years and have many letters of appreciation from parents.Fruit is supplied to every child every day.I donate monthly to Save the Children and have never once made any reference to worthless parents.I am as dismayed as any right minded parent that the fruit will be cut but have offered a viable alternative ie let parents step in.
And as for suffering from cutbacks we are all taking our share.
Oh and finally,my daughter is now a teacher(not in UK) and she actively encourages the pupils to have their fruit which is supplied by their parents every day.




Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 5th Sep 2010, 10:49am

"My kids,Tommy, were not fortunate."- you say, Jupiter (It's because of your brain power!) - this is suggestive that kids with parents lacking in brain power are NOT unfortunate rolleyes.gif , I consider your children - as my children and grandchildren were/are - very fortunate; not only to have undertsanding parents but to have lived in much better times/conditions than my generation went thru and I don't think the parents of my generation had 'less brain power' than the present generation of parents.
I'm sure tho' it was the case that the Establishment of yesteryear considered it was the 'lack of brainpower''of the poor and weak that contributed to their own poverty.
Go just a wee bit further back and they were; not the 'unfortunates' but the 'undeserving poor'

Posted by: Guest 5th Sep 2010, 11:15am

What I don't get is why Matheson who is supposed to be a Labour councillor is following the Con-Dem agenda of cuts?! Surely as Labour, he should protest against the cuts being forced on ordinary people when it was the bankers fault by setting an alternative/protest budget and get people back on the side of Labour

Taking children's fruit away is the lowest of the low!

Posted by: Jupiter 5th Sep 2010, 11:32am

Tommy once again you are changing what I am saying.Who mentioned brainpower.?I have a brain like everyone else and am of average intelligence nothing more nothing less.Im not making suggestions regarding the intellect or brainpower as you call it of other person or how they deploy it.
Nuff said.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 5th Sep 2010, 12:17pm

"My wife and I have brains ," suggesting, quite rightly, that you both have 'used' your brains to better your lifes and your childrens - the poor/weak/inadequate do not; thus are undeserving.
You have stated on at least 2 occasions that you do not consider your life circumnstances to be 'Fortunate' - suggestive again that your blessings in life are 100% down to your own abilities. This is suggestive that those that have, - shall I say poor circumstances in life, rather than 'unfortunate' -, that it is all down to their own inabilities.

Well Thatcher and all the Tories would agree with you

Posted by: GG 5th Sep 2010, 12:23pm

Please remember that we should be able to accommodate conflicting viewpoints in a sensible and respectful manner. In fact, I think the expression of differing opinions is the lifeblood of the discussion process: it's what makes productive and rewarding discourse possible. It also contributes, hopefully, to the development of our understanding; our ability to make sense of a complex subject.

BUT ... this only works if we are both considerate and friendly and don't dwell on personal aspects of the discussion topic.

GG.

Posted by: Jupiter 5th Sep 2010, 12:31pm

GG can I say that I agree with you wholeheartedly re the discussions on the Forums.I have expressed my views in a general manner from the start and I do not propose to change that.
I do not come on here to belittle or demean anyones lifestyle or opinion.I try to be as accurate,truthful and factual as possible.I see no point in unsubstantiated sweeping statements but as they are here I consider them and will try to respond when appropriate.

Posted by: GG 5th Sep 2010, 12:39pm

Thanks, Jupiter, I appreciate your consideration.

Generally, in terms of this topic and trying to move it along, I think that we should remember that the scientific evidence shows that the neglect of fruit in children's diet occurs across the whole socio-economic spectrum. It's a 'Glasgow' thing, not an 'intelligence/economic' thing. If accept this as true, and we accept that fruit is important in a child's diet, wellbeing and development, then it might be worth considering how the promotion of more fruit can be done under current conditions ... or is the 1.8million spent by public bodies on this targeted intervention money well spent (invested in our children's future)?

Also,

GG.

Posted by: Jupiter 5th Sep 2010, 12:44pm

Tommy,when have I ever suggested than anyone is undeserving?When you will desist from putting your own spin on comments?
I dont consider myself fortunate in that you are quite correct and I dont go in for blessings either.I have repeatedly stated that I fully support those in need of benefit recieving their full entitlement.
I have not suggested anything,you are the only one here doing that.
I cannot comment on the weaknesses or inabilities of others because I am not in any position to do so but I would never equate these traits with being undeserving.
"Well Thatcher and all the Tories would agree with you"????
Im scratching my head

Posted by: GG 5th Sep 2010, 01:19pm

Some background information about Glasgow's Fruit Plus initiative:

QUOTE
Background:

Fruit Plus is an attempt to improve the diet of Glasgow’s school children. The project aims to increase the uptake and enjoyment of fresh fruit among children in primary and nursery schools thereby encouraging the habit of fruit eating at an early age that will be maintained throughout life.

Free fruit is provided three times per week to children in all 381 primary schools, council managed nurseries and Special Educational Needs establishments within the Glasgow City area. Direct and Care Services manage the logistical challenge of distributing seven million pieces of fruit annually for consumption in the classroom.

This is supported by curriculum input devised by Education Services in liaison with Greater Glasgow NHS Board (GGNHSB) to tie in with Glasgow’s existing curricular document ‘Glasgow’s Health’. Supporting activity packs and ‘Fruit Plus’ branded promotional material in the form of bookmarks, stickers and badges are used to reinforce uptake.

The initiative is part of the Food and Health Framework, an overall strategy developed by Glasgow Healthy City Partnership to promote healthy eating. It complements other initiatives such as breakfast clubs (‘Glasgow’s Big Breakfast’), healthier school meals and community food activities.

The result of research into the effects of the Fruit Plus:

QUOTE
Key Findings:

1. Impact of Fruit Plus on consumption of fruit and vegetables within the school and at home.

A) Consumption at school

1. Teachers and head teachers believed that over time, pupils appeared to be more willing to try a greater variety of fruit and vegetables. The most commonly preferred fruits were grapes, apples and bananas. In terms of the key fruits which pupils disliked, these included cherry
tomatoes, pineapple, and pears.

2. Teachers noticed that more pupils were bringing fruit from home and in some cases wanted to ‘show’ the teacher what they had brought.

3. A number of pupils reported that they ate both fruit and crisps or sweets at break times on Fruit Plus days. The fruit provided at school was in addition to other refreshments at breaktime rather than an alternative. Few pupils claimed they brought fruit from home for consumption at breaktime within the school.

4. However, objective observation and handcounts demonstrated that fewer than 20% of the children brought fruit to school with them and that this level reduced to 11% over the period of the study. It is worth noting that during this time every child was receiving a free piece of fruit and so one explanation could be that parents considered that there was no need to supplement this with more fruit.

5. Researchers observed no reduction in consumption of crisps, sweets and fizzy drinks even on days when free fruit was supplied. Fruit had not at this stage become an alternative choice.

6. The Catering Managers perceived there was an increased appetite for fruit at lunchtimes. However, the fruit and vegetable order for both schools remained the same.

B) Consumption at home

1. Many parents had not seen a major change in consumption at home. These parents considered their children to be quite inflexible about the fruit and vegetables they liked or disliked. However, a number of parents at each school considered they had seen a change in their children’s overall consumption of fruit and vegetables since the start of Fruit Plus. Parents had observed their children being more willing to try both fruit and vegetables at home, whereas before, these had simply been refused. Changes had been experienced with children of a variety of ages at both schools. Parents reported they were purchasing more fruit than previously.

2. Most pupils reported that they ate a variety of fruit outwith school, such as; strawberries, kiwi, raspberries, melon, mango and plums. Interestingly, most of the fruit mentioned was not types of fruit provided via Fruit Plus.

Want to know more?
http://library.nhsggc.org.uk/mediaAssets/pdf/fruit_in_schools.pdf

GG.

Posted by: GG 5th Sep 2010, 01:29pm

N.B. The council's 'Breakfast Clubs', mentioned above, were cut by Councillor Matheson at the start of the current school term. From the Scotsman on 20th August 2010:

QUOTE
A scheme giving "free" school breakfasts to all children in Glasgow has been scrapped at the start of the new term.

Pupils will have to pay 50p after council officials decided they could not afford to give the meals away.

Some youngsters turned up for the start of the new school year to find out that they would have to pay, while others were told of the change in letters distributed before the summer.

Dad John Bone - whose sons Mark, ten, and Adam, five - go to Alexandra Parade Primary in the east end of Glasgow was furious at the move. He said: "My boys regularly go for breakfast and enjoy the chance to mix with pupils of different ages. But they won't be going any more."

Glasgow City Council, which won plaudits for the scheme as part of its bid to boost youngsters' health, stressed that children entitled to free school meals would not be asked to pay for their breakfasts.

GG.

Posted by: Guest 5th Sep 2010, 05:16pm

So, are we to understand that the citizens of Glasgow are happy to allow their children to attend a breakfast club at the expense of the Glasgow council tax payer but they are not themselves willing to pay for breakfast for their own children? Damned cheek.

Posted by: Jupiter 5th Sep 2010, 05:41pm

In the instance quoted it appears to be the case.Hopefully the kids will get a good plate of porridge,toast,tea and a piece of fruit before they go to school.That will set their minds up for the days lessons.
Joop

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 6th Sep 2010, 12:45am

A civilised society - the State -has a moral obligation/duty to provide ‘All’ for a child’s welfare where parents are unable for whatever reason; even if it is just pure ignorance or not caring, on the parent’s part. The children are ‘innocents’

Posted by: Jupiter 6th Sep 2010, 08:28am

I see another council,this time North Lanarkshire are in dire straits and proposing swingeing cuts including free fruit to the children.

Posted by: Guest #2 6th Sep 2010, 05:06pm

QUOTE (Guest @ 5th Sep 2010, 06:18pm) *
So, are we to understand that the citizens of Glasgow are happy to allow their children to attend a breakfast club at the expense of the Glasgow council tax payer but they are not themselves willing to pay for breakfast for their own children? Damned cheek.

So, are we to understand that the councillors of Glasgow are happy to allow our children to continue to suffer from the long-term detrimental effects of a poor diet at the long-term expense of the Glasgow council tax payer? Just for the sake of saving a couple of bob. Damned disgraceful.

Posted by: Guest 6th Sep 2010, 05:51pm

QUOTE
So, are we to understand that the councillors of Glasgow are happy to allow our children to continue to suffer from the long term effects of a poor diet at the long term expense of the Glasgow council tax payer?

No. We are to understand that our personal family responsibilities must be met by us and not come out of the public purse. If we do not understand this we risk a section of our community becoming dependent on welfare benefits.

I think that would be a bad thing.

Posted by: Guest 2# 8th Sep 2010, 07:03am

QUOTE (Guest @ 6th Sep 2010, 06:53pm) *
....I think that would be a bad thing.

What IS a BAD thing is Baillie Matheson's decision to abandon the nutritional and wellbeing needs of a vulnerable group when his own council has previously identified those needs as being both important and compelling. The Fruit Plus initiative was based on very sound scientific research .... Matheson's decision to abandon it appears to have little behind it other than a beancounter's hunch.

The decision to cut the fruit will result in a BIGGER burden to council tax payers in the long run.

Posted by: Jupiter 8th Sep 2010, 11:58am

I dont doubt for one second that depriving a child of fruit will have a detrimental effect but Im afraid that in the present economic climate this will pale in comparison to cuts which will have to be made when the budget is finally announced next month.
My wife and I are getting the cases packed and hopefully will be out of it.
Last out switch off the lights.
Joop.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 8th Sep 2010, 03:45pm

The welfare of children - innocents - can not pale into comparison to anything

Posted by: Jupiter 8th Sep 2010, 03:51pm

The Medical Research Council has drawn up plans to withdraw the 105 million that it spends on cancer to meet Treasury proposals to save at least 20% from its budget.That is a serious situation.

Posted by: GG 8th Sep 2010, 07:21pm

Ian Bell's take on the 'need' for cuts is interesting:

QUOTE
I’ll point this out because no-one else – and you must ask yourself how this works – will.

No public spending cuts are needed. None. Public spending cuts are stupid, dangerous, and intended to stuff the throats of the rich. A fraud.

But how could I say such a thing? Didn’t the latest Chancellor call his Budget “inevitable”? Doesn’t that woman on Radio Four’s Today programme speak, morning upon morning, of the cuts “we all know are coming”? And don’t Sir John of Humph and Lord Jim of Naught murmur the chorus?

Crap. The people who live where I live could elaborate. The “crisis”, as we are daily schooled to call it, is an excuse – Ms Naomi Klein may deserve the label’s prize – for the largest transfer of wealth from the public realm to the private sphere since the self-invention of the pickpocket. ...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/comment/ian-bell/greed-not-envy-is-the-deadliest-sin-1.1040470

GG.

Posted by: Melody 9th Sep 2010, 09:40am

An excellent article by Ian Bell Martin, makes you wonder how they imagine we take it all in and believe them that it's for our own good. laugh.gif

Posted by: big tommy 9th Sep 2010, 11:26am

Dear Benny
Thats the first i have heard of a 20.00 fee for a disabled badge .BUT i'm not surprised .It is always the most vulnerable who are first to be hit.
Tell me this though . Does this fee also apply to disabled War Pensioners? if so there will be an outcry .and rightly so.
Tommy

Posted by: benny 9th Sep 2010, 02:52pm

Ah think it covers everyone who applies for a Blue Badge, Big Tommy, but ah'm no 100% sure.
Ah'm no surprised people hivnae heard aboot it, there wis nae mention of it on the application ah received - ah only found oot by gaun tae the Glasgow Council website and even there it wis away doon at the bottom of the page.

Posted by: davidhendry 10th Sep 2010, 11:00am

Get them out. You`ve got the means. Democracy? For whom? The rich get richer......... Having lived under a benevolent dictator, a fair man, an honest and upright man I know which system I prefer. At the end of the day, the duly elected become dictatorial in any case. Democracy, they couldnae spell it.

Davie.

Posted by: Jupiter 10th Sep 2010, 11:04am

Davidhenry a very interesting post.Ive never known anyone who has lived under a dictatorship so could you oblige and let us know a bit more about that.
First Ive come across you here so welcome to the Boards.
Joop.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 10th Sep 2010, 01:43pm

Western Democracy, David henry: The more money you have the more Democracy/freedoms/choices you have.

Posted by: GG 10th Sep 2010, 06:53pm

QUOTE (Melody @ 9th Sep 2010, 10:42am) *
An excellent article by Ian Bell Martin, makes you wonder how they imagine we take it all in and believe them that it's for our own good. laugh.gif

Thanks, Melody.

In fact, that very night I read an excellent editorial opinion article by Anatole Kaletsky in, of all places, The Times, which summed up how the 'credit crunch' has resulted in bankers emerging stronger and richer than ever. Some excerpts from 'Bankers are Masters of the Universe again; It's a paradox but the unfocused rage against the financiers is one reason for their sudden rehabilitation':

QUOTE
... [T]he financial crisis and subsequent recession has forced the adoption of macroeconomic policies that inevitably generate huge profits for the banks. The problem lies not with these policies ... the problem lies with the way that bankers have been allowed to exploit zero interest rates for their own personal benefit, rather than the interests of society.

In a nutshell, the banks are borrowing money for nothing from the Bank of England and investing it in risk-free government bonds that pay more than 3 per cent. A large part of the guaranteed profits racked up by this simple strategy is then distributed to their employees as salaries and bonuses. ...

The article goes on to tell how politicians have been sidelined, reduced to arguing among themselves while the richest get richer and the poorest suffer from devastating, but largely unnecessary, cuts to public services:

QUOTE
... The blame for the financial crisis and subsequent recession, initially heaped on banks and bankers, has been deflected on to politicians and public officials. ... [T]he exaggerated attacks against bankers ended up distracting attention from the real causes of the crisis and the feasible, but moderate, reforms they implied. The media witch-hunt against bankers inspired politicians, economists and financial regulators to propose radical solutions such as the break-up of "too-big-to-fail" banks that never had any serious chance of being enacted. Instead, they should have focused on small but important technical changes such as the creation of unlimited deposit insurance and introduction of compulsory levies to cover the cost of the Government's bailout insurance.

To make matters worse, politicians have since found it irresistible to blame their political opponents for the economic consequences of the crisis, instead of explaining patiently to the voters the rather complex linkage of events that led to recession and the explosion in public deficits around the world. This chain of events began with the slow and incompetent response of the Bush Administration to the financial turbulence after the collapse of Lehman. It now continues with the absurd view promoted by some governments, including most prominently David Cameron's Government, that the recession was some kind of divine retribution for too much government spending and can be ended only by slashing public spending to expiate this economic version of original sin.

Unfortunately, I can't post a link to the full article as The Times is subscription only, so not available for free online. I think that's what they call irony!

GG.

Posted by: Jupiter 10th Sep 2010, 07:59pm

GG Ive read many articles by this journalist.The Times is one of the best papers out and well worth the subscription money.25% off the cover price,free gifts,theatre and cinema tickets.
Joop

Posted by: Melody 11th Sep 2010, 08:51am

Thanks for posting that Martin, I fear in an few short months we shall see the rush from private companies to gorge themselves on a massive free for all sell off of all our public services. I fear we won't recognise our own country. The poor are going to go the wall unless we waken up and do something about it. We all mourned the sad loss of Jimmy Reid and the qualities he possessed in his fight for the man and woman in the street, the people who have to work to survive. The qualities which make life worth living. To work in the public sector was a privilege, so serve our own, a worthy achievement in life often with very little monetary reward, Now it will be a sad society with individuals who are completely each for themselves sadly.

Posted by: Jupiter 11th Sep 2010, 09:21am

Morning Melody,I read your post and I was wondering what private sectors you were referring to as I thought most utilites had been privatised.
Joop

Posted by: Melody 11th Sep 2010, 09:30am

I think you must have got my meaning Jupiter. What was and what is about to be lost. To be honest they have made such an underhand job of it all it's difficult to know with they're arm's length set-ups. No doubt you will have you own perception as to what's right and wrong as I have mine and they seem to differ greatly by your previous posts on other topics, therefore there's not much point in my continuing to make myself understood with you.

Posted by: davidhendry 11th Sep 2010, 09:30am

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 10th Sep 2010, 12:06pm) *
Davidhenry a very interesting post.Ive never known anyone who has lived under a dictatorship so could you oblige and let us know a bit more about that.
First Ive come across you here so welcome to the Boards.
Joop.

Hi Joop,
I`ve lived under three dictators.
The first was Said Bin Taimor,Sultan of Oman. Real despot. Citizens had nowt..............No water, electricity, one hospital in the whole country. Radios, cars, even sunglasses not allowed. Loads of other tyrannical laws. But little or no corruption.

Second was Mobutu in Zaire. Corruption rife. Secret police offering to sell foreigners diamonds to entrap. Penalty if caught with illicit diamonds.....life in a real hellhole. Went to local prison to ask why my interpreter was locked up. Forget the details, but got him out for a " fee. "

Third, and final, was Qaboos Bin Said present Sultan of Oman. My description of him you`ve read.

I saw a documentary, a year or so ago. The title I don`t know, but was about a group of powerful people from around the globe, bankers, politicians, and the like,planning what the world order should be. It terrified me. Household names in the west planning such things as when the next recession should be. If the info. was genuine, I`m scared. The group is called Bilderberg, or similar.
These people are the stalwarts of the western system. Democracy....they couldnae spell it.

Davie.

Posted by: Melody 11th Sep 2010, 09:35am

David that's exactly what it has felt like over the past few years. Some crazy greedy giants taking us all for mugs.

Posted by: Jupiter 11th Sep 2010, 09:41am

Melody,please accept my apology if I have caused offence.It was never my intent.I was merely asking a simple question in response to your post.Is that not what the boards are about? I certainly dont expect you or anyone else to concur with my views but this would be a boring site if everyone agreed.On one thing I will agree with you 100%."TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR WAS A PRIVILEDGE,SO SERVE OUR OWN,A WORTHY ACHIEVEMENT IN LIFE." I was priviledged to work for 30 years in the police.
Regards
Joop.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 11th Sep 2010, 10:56am

30 years a cop, Jupiter so you had some of the Thatcher years? - and there's you saying you haven't been fortunate in life, when it was very good/fortunate to be a cop during her reign rolleyes.gif

Not so good to be a nurse/ paramedic /firefighter or any other public sector jobs

Posted by: Jupiter 11th Sep 2010, 11:42am

Tommy you are spot on when I said I wasnt fortunate, nor did I count blessings or thank stars.I did count the bruises,black eyes,broken bones,chronic back pain from an injury in 1988 from which I still suffer.But I signed on to take the bad and the good not on what government happened to be in Westminster.As I stated before politics were rarely mentioned in the police which is as you will be aware is apolitical.Aye,I done my best to serve the community as honestly and well as I could and do you know something,I have a certain amount of pride for all that.
Retired at 49,big lump sum,great pension for which I paid handsomely.That was the deal pure and simple.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 11th Sep 2010, 12:40pm

Tommy you are spot on when I said I wasnt fortunate, nor did I count blessings or thank stars.

That explains, Jupiter, why you cannot accept there are ‘unfortunates’ in life
As I stated before politics were rarely mentioned in the police – you should have been a comedian, Jupiter
You back peddle, Jupiter when challenged – you have indeed inferred admiration for this government and indicated you ‘liked’ the views of the troll ‘Bob The joiner’ (He operates under various identities)

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 11th Sep 2010, 01:07pm

I have a certain amount of pride for all that.

Och, well, Jupiter we both have one thing in common.....We both have a good opinion of ourselves - I have with my good looks, been a big game hunter - crocdile wrestler/shark fighter - sky diver/ have my own 'hang glider' and of course my 'Dance moves' tongue.gif

Posted by: Jupiter 11th Sep 2010, 02:25pm

Tommy,I didnt infer anything.If I want to say I admire a political aspect I will.I wont waffle on like some here.Ill say,"I think this is the correct policy or I think this is not the correct policy."
Who is Bob the Builder?
I know I made a reply to his post and I meant what I said other than that dont know anything about him.
Tommy you are the one who is fond of the word unfortunates,who exactly do you mean by that?
Come on Tommy,when did I back peddle?

Posted by: benny 11th Sep 2010, 03:34pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 11th Sep 2010, 11:23am) *
Morning Melody,I read your post and I was wondering what private sectors you were referring to as I thought most utilites had been privatised.
Joop

Yes, most of the utilities have been privatised, Joop, and I don't think that the consumer is one bit better off for it - quite the opposite. Unfortunately, utilities aren't the only area of public ownership earmarked for privatisation. Even under New Labour the process had already started. Private companies have infiltrated the prison service, the MOD, and the NHS. These areas have not been wholly privatised as yet, but subsidiary services have been farmed out to private companies, and it's only a matter of time, in my opinion. The present government has also now stated its definite intention to privatise the Post Office. In addition to all of this, there are the many private companies called in as "consultants" at exorbitant fees, for research which would have once been carried out by the government department itself. This "consultancy" scam applies at both national and local government level and, because of the lack of efficient checks, is an invitation to corruption - for example, local councillors hiring companies in which they themselves have a financial interest.

I believe that some areas are so vital to public life that the state should never relinquish ownership, especially to foreign companies, if it is at all avoidable. Who knows whether today's friend may not be tomorrow's enemy?

Posted by: Jupiter 11th Sep 2010, 04:18pm

Thanks for that reply,Benny,very informative.
Cheers#Joop.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 11th Sep 2010, 06:31pm

Tommy you are the one who is fond of the word unfortunates,who exactly do you mean by that?

The poor, the weak, the old, the sick, disabled who will suffer under this government.
(Of course dodgy Dave promised they wouldn't)
But you seem to indicate that you don't accept that some in life have good fortune and some mis-fortune - maybe you'd prefer to call them non-achievers - allowing to describe your self an 'Achiever' and thus have a good opinion of yourself

Who is Bob the Builder?

One of similar views to yourself - but you saw that with his post!

Posted by: Jupiter 11th Sep 2010, 07:59pm

Tommy its a fact of life that there will always be inequality.This country although not perfect prides itself in having a welfare system which helps those in need.
What I see happening now is cutbacks across every Government Department and there will be some who lose out more than others but I do not see a situation whereby citizens will be left to fend for themselves.
I dont call myself anything.I go about my lawful business putting food on the table and creating as much wealth as I can.Is that any different from anyone else?
Bob the Builder?I read his post and thought that it gave a balanced alternative view of what was going on.I told him there was no cyber bullying here,that he would get a reaction and that was it.I didnt say,"Spot on Bob.I agree with your views"This is your take on it Tommy.You have a knack of reading things into perfectly innocuous statements.

Posted by: troutmask 11th Sep 2010, 09:52pm

I dont want appear a bit of a moaner. But I would take a shot in the dark, that most of these children will live in a house with a flat screen telly, mobile phones, ipods, maybe an ex box etc. And when Jamie Oliver was advocating healthy eating in schools, dozy mums were pushing hamburgers through the school gates to their lovable offspring. So whats the problem.. just buy a couple of bloody bananas, and stop moaning.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 11th Sep 2010, 11:38pm

Tommy its a fact of life that there will always be inequality

And I repeat again: inequality is greater in Western countriues where there is the least social democracy

Posted by: wombat 11th Sep 2010, 11:43pm

tongue.gif wid be wurse where U are in UK wie a class system Tommy?

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 11th Sep 2010, 11:46pm

As I've said often, Wombat - 2 Western countries that suffer most with societies ills:

U.S. & U.K.

Posted by: Melody 12th Sep 2010, 08:45am

I just heard a discussion on the radio where they were talking about the loss of personal care for the elderly due to the brutal cuts. What part of the changed society since the 1950's is it that they don't understand when they say," Oh we'll just have to go back to a situation where children looked after their elderly relatives". Young couples these days are working all hours that God sends to keep a roof over their heads, that's if they are lucky enough to hang on to their jobs. In the 1950's most married women were at home living nearby and able to care for a mother or father. Fruit taken away from kids, personal care taken away from the elderly? Get a grip Jupiter and see what's in front of your eyes. It's going to be complete survival of the strongest, if they keep their jobs and that's a big if. Stop trying to justify what's unjustifiable.
I would imagine that being a policeman must harden one's outlook on life. If you constantly see villains and crooks during your life's work you must come to believe that most people are the same and are due some kind of punishment or other. That's simply very sad indeed. Can you not see that as usual and with far more venom that the rich are swallowing up the poor here?

Posted by: Jupiter 12th Sep 2010, 09:32am

Good Morning,Melody.
Am I the surprised one recieving a post from you.I thought you had blown me out of the water.
"Get a grip and see whats in front of your eyes"
Melody I am perfectly aware about what is in front of my eyes and that is a country which has spent way in excess of what it has earned.In simple terms the money has run out,the credit card is maxed out and there is nothing else to do but cut back on many of the things we have taken for granted in the past.It is a sad day when what you suggest in your introduction may happen and I agree with you.
Regarding your imagination well being a policeman for many years does focus the attention a bit and one does learn very quickly when someone is lying or cheating.
Please dont assume that I believed everyone was the same,that is the vividest part of your imagination.I encountered many genuine people who were unconnected with crime or criminality in any way.I dont know how you come to the conclusion that I think people are due punishment.
Ive never mentioned this at any time.
My view(and I know you may have read it on another post)is this.
I firmly believe that those entitled to help from the state,be they sick or unemployed,recieve all their entitlement and that all those obtaining benefits of any kind by fraudulent means should be dealt with as per the law.Is there something in this view that is incorrect?
The rich are swallowing the poor? Im afraid youve got me with that one,Melody.
Joop.

Posted by: GG 13th Sep 2010, 07:19am

Gerry Hassan wrote a good article last week about the nature and scale of the cuts, concluding:

QUOTE
...The scale of cutbacks is going to make the 1980s seem restrained, but so far Labour and SNP have played a war of posturing, rather than being constructive. One of the dangers we face is of top-down public sector reform being done to us, while the wider trade union movement digs in to a politics of resistance and defiance, like a remake of a bad 1980s film with a dwindling box office appeal.

Both the SNP and Labour have huge opportunities to tell a story not just about standing up to London and for Scotland, but taking national leadership, and telling a narrative which is about the kind of public services we want. And central to this is challenging trade unions to be constructive, proactive and imaginative in a way they haven’t been about work, jobs and organisation since the heyday of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders nearly forty years ago. Whoever can dare to move out of a bunker mentality could position themselves well for years to come, long after recession and ‘cuts’ have become part of our national folklore like the 1980s and the poll tax.

http://www.gerryhassan.com/?p=1363

Commenting on the article, Joan McAlpine raises a very interesting point that powerful self-interested elites dominate decision-making within public sector bureaucracies, and that these powerful groups will seek to protect themselves by forcing through cuts to frontline workers and services while remaining relatively unscathed:

QUOTE
... There is a similar argument to be made about our police forces and indeed enterprise companies who all have large bureacracies and managerial duplication whose public benefit is not clear. Of course this would mean losing a highly paid class of educated people whose salaries support other businesses and jobs. They will, of course, be entitled to generous redundancy settlements, and if they were given help to channel their talent and ability into starting businesses might this not be more beneficial to Scotland in the future?

However there seems little likelihood that those who preside over these elites would be willing to dismantle their own empires. If they will not do it who will? Politicians in local government and nationally appear to have little appetite for it. They would rather leave it in the hands of managers who prefer to salami slice or remove vital services delivered by front line workers they seldom meet in person.

http://www.gerryhassan.com/?p=1363&cpage=1#comment-514

And to take us back to the original subject of this topic: could it be that the leader of Glasgow City Council is targeting the weakest and most vulnerable group in society (children) because he lacks the appetite to dismantle the 'mini-empires' which exist within the country's largest and poorest-performing education department? Or should we credit Councillor Matheson for ensuring the cuts are spread evenly: from http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/100-managers-take-redundancy-at-glasgow-council-1.1052522 to frontline workers/services?

GG.

Posted by: tamhickey 13th Sep 2010, 09:37am

The weakest sections of society are always the ones who are scapegoated and who suffer most from Govermental initiatives. When did you last hear about millionaires being taxed at reasonable amounts? It's so stupid that we have a system whereby Scotland hands in a 1.4 billion SURPLUS yet is told your pocket money's going down. Disgraceful, and for those who say that the coffers are empty let me reiterate that Scotland has a surplus and will become even richer as time goes on due to renewable energy and our role in developing it.
Scotland's not skint, it is our unionist politicians who seem to be devoid of ideas and there's another story.

Posted by: davidhendry 13th Sep 2010, 10:21am

QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 11th Sep 2010, 11:58am) *
30 years a cop, Jupiter so you had some of the Thatcher years? - and there's you saying you haven't been fortunate in life, when it was very good/fortunate to be a cop during her reign rolleyes.gif

Not so good to be a nurse/ paramedic /firefighter or any other public sector jobs

I remember when the salaries of police and army were improved by that woman. Lots of ORDINARY people said this was solely to control civil instability which was sure to come, due to her policies. There should have been a revolution,but the people then, as now, were divided. Exactly as the politicos want it.

A question....... If an MP serves only one term, does he/she qualify for a pension?

Another.....Any action against the Westminster thieves? ( The ones who were caught )

I have always held the Brit. parliament in the highest esteem. Not any more. I am thoroughly, totally disenchanted with our rulers. Robin Hood in reverse. I wonder how many young people would volunteer should there ever be a big conflict.

This is depressing stuff. Ahm nearly greetin.

Davie.

Posted by: Jupiter 13th Sep 2010, 10:53am

davidhenry do you also remember 1977 when the Labour Government commissioned Lord Edmund Davis to look into Police pay and conditions when there was widespread public support for pay increases.?
At this time the police service was seriously undermanned due to the poor pay and officers were leaving in large numbers.
The report was accepted in full and was to be staged over a two year period .This arrangement was accepted by the Police Federation but after the May election when the Conservatives came to power
the pay rise was implemented immediately in full rather than staged.The increases took place in May as opposed to September.
So in effect it was the outgoing Labour government who instigated and accepted the increases and not the Conservatives.
Cheers,
Joop.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 13th Sep 2010, 02:03pm

I remember, Davidhenry, when Maggie sacked hundreds of health inspectors - putting peoples health at risks - sadly Labour didn't replace them. It is rare now for a restaurant/hotel to have a health inspector call.
The fortune for the cops I referred to was all the overtime they got, thanks to Thathcer, - miners/strikes.
I can see this lot regretting, if they go along with it, getting rid of a lot of cop, theres gonna be a lot of strikes
I think this time there will be a lot more public resistence to 'cuts' owing to the publicity of M.Ps fiddles and bankers bonuses etc. Also I can see the Unions emphasising the very 'Rich' background of this lot - Cameron's inherited wealth goes back to the Empire days

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 13th Sep 2010, 02:35pm

P.S.
I see they're gonna flog off the 'Royal mail' - what's the betting a foriegn company gets it, probably a Dutch company, and Tory M.Ps will have loads of shares in it.

Tho' U.S. is very anti Nationalising/Socialism they consider the 'Post/mail and Rail track' must be in government control - trains may be nationalised but the track, for safety reasons, government controlled - known as 'AM-Track' - the post of course government themselves use; can be great legal issues if mail goes adrift and severe punishments for any mis-use of it.

Posted by: Jupiter 13th Sep 2010, 02:51pm

That was 1984-85 Tommy,I remember it really well.We all went to Majorca for a month at the end of it,after the gruelling 12 hour shifts on duty keeping the roads clear for the lorries at Hunterston.
Hard but worthwhile duties ensuring the coal ot through.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 13th Sep 2010, 03:06pm

after the gruelling 12 hour shifts on duty
Aye, Jupiter, those miners had no idea what real hard work was like compared to you cops, eh rolleyes.gif - and didn't have such 'good opinions of themselves' as you have . Did you no get any medals , you should have tongue.gif

Posted by: Jupiter 13th Sep 2010, 03:11pm

Plenty medals,they all came in the form of fat pay cheques.

Posted by: Tommy Kennedy 13th Sep 2010, 03:19pm

Yea, as I said ,Jupiter, the 'Good auld days' for cops - but not miners or others in the public sector - 'Let them eat cake' eh!..you're all heart rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Anne1 13th Sep 2010, 03:33pm

cant say that about you, all heart

Posted by: Jupiter 13th Sep 2010, 03:34pm

All we got was a fair days pay for a fair days work.That how the system works.Nothing really to do with hearts.Dont get emotional.

Posted by: davidhendry 14th Sep 2010, 07:16am

Joop,
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the police pay rise. Ordinary people, me, with no former interest in politics, suddenly became aware. Policies, to many, which bordered on criminal acts. Tarzan in parliament denying a hit list of twenty two pits for closure. When tackled, afterwards, a prominent tory said no lie was told, because it exceeded twenty two. Now that's really playing with words. We have millions of ordinary people who are patriotic, almost to a fault. Then we have the others, selling off the family silver. The icon of Brit. engineering, Rolls Royce, sold off. That one really miffed many people. The car industry, the shipbuilding, gone. Why, the Japs and Koreans better than us? No, lack of investing years of profits back in to the industries. I had a spell in Broons,(JBE then), machines pre 1st. war still being used. Blame the unions, was the war cry.The easy answer. Tell a lie often enough...... Doesn't it piss people off when every car they see is foreign? The shipyards becoming walkways and dossing places for druggies and the like? Doesn't it make you think, when you read of aircraft sitting at Croydon for the duration, ready to evacuate the great and good? Britain can be Great again, but not ruled by the existing political class. ( singular, the late Labour lot are only left wing Tories)

Rant over for now, its breakfast time.

Davie.

Posted by: Jupiter 14th Sep 2010, 11:10am

davidhenry,the word,"disemble" springs to mind about what you say.
Police pay was a big issue then as so many officers were leaving and the Labour Govt ordered a review which was implemented a few months early by the Tories.As you will know things got so bad under Labour that
for many voting Tory was the only answer.Unfortunately for millions as history has shown us many who did vote must have been unaware of the tory leaderships plans.Thatchers policy was deregulation,flexible labour markets,selling off and closure of state owned companies and withdrawing subsidies to others.Not a nice time for many but she was reelected twice so clearly her policies appealed to many.I like you mourn the passing of the shipyards and big manufacturers which were in evidence although I cant say I agree with the car bit.Some of the cars latterly made in Britain and I can think of a few were absolute rubbish.Poor build quality unreliable,so I suppose thats the reason car buyers started buying foreign.Davidhenry,Britain is a great country,Scotland and Glasgow are part of that greatness although there is no denying that it is going through a rough period just now but the resiliance is there and with strong economic and fiscal policies will soon be back.
What does a man in Goa have for brekkie?Are you sitting in the sun on a palm tree beach?
Cheers
Joop.

Posted by: Jupiter 14th Sep 2010, 11:15am

Davidhenry,the first line of my previous post refers to what was going on at Westminster and not the content of what you have written.
Joop.

Posted by: davidhendry 17th Sep 2010, 06:47am

One, of the many, things I regret, was the passing of John Smith. I think the last Labour government would have been so much different from Bliars (!) left wing tories. However, it wasn't to be. Unlike some, Icant really get too het up with politics or politicians these days. Perhaps old age or just the realisation that ordinary people are pawns in a global game and don't really have a voice except that one day when they put their X in the wee box.

To lighten things up, and answer Joops question, my breakfast consists, every morning, of tea and toast and a glass of milk. How boring, but its just another lifetimes' bad habit. The monsoons have just about gone, and in three weeks will have sunshine every day until next May. Boring, innit!

Any members coming here, next season, particularly first timers? Get in touch, and I'll give you the grand tour. (such as it is!) I'm always happy to meet Glega wallahs and shoot the shit over a wee drink.

Hate to say it, Joops, but breakfast calls.

Cheerio the noo.

Davie.

Posted by: irrie 17th Sep 2010, 07:57am

QUOTE (davidhendry @ 13th Sep 2010, 11:23am) *
I remember when the salaries of police and army were improved by that woman. Lots of ORDINARY people said this was solely to control civil instability which was sure to come, due to her policies. There should have been a revolution,but the people then, as now, were divided. Exactly as the politicos want it.

A question....... If an MP serves only one term, does he/she qualify for a pension?

Another.....Any action against the Westminster thieves? ( The ones who were caught )

I have always held the Brit. parliament in the highest esteem. Not any more. I am thoroughly, totally disenchanted with our rulers. Robin Hood in reverse. I wonder how many young people would volunteer should there ever be a big conflict.

lvie.snippet from a bbc news report the other day ministers are looking at ways to cut pensioners heating allowance/free travel without breaking DCs election pledge to safeguard them.enough said i think

Posted by: Zorro 21st Sep 2010, 01:46pm

I am neither for or against these cuts but I think some of you should know some of the facts in relation to school meals in Glasgow. The Scottish Parliament have introduced numerous 'healthy eating' ideas in recent years and sadly the vast majority have failed in Glasgow and West Scotland.

They have taken away fizzy drink machines which in turn means that the kids have an option to either eat their food in the school dining hall and then go outside for their fizzy drinks. The vast majority go outside and get whatever is on offer from the local Chinese, Chippy or Indian with their special offers of stodge and chips with free fizzy drinks thrown in. It also creates a great loss to the school revenue. Eastbank Academy in the east end is a perfect example of schoolkids rejecting what is on offer from the school canteen and they have deserted the dining hall in droves in recent terms. And believe you me we have enough bad health issues in the Shettleston area without our children rejecting healthy eating options because of a can of Coke or Irn Bru. The vast majority of Secondary School kids do not want to work at eating fruit i.e. peeling an apple , orange or a banana. This means that valuable staff time is spent cutting up fruit and mixing it up in small plastic bags. The truth be told the vast majority of MSP's never attended school dining halls in their schooldays and those who did usually have bad memories of pink custard and rhubarb so they have literally no idea of what a modern day school dining hall and kitchen is capable of serving without ramming all sorts of rabbit food down our children's throats. Leave school dinners to the people who know best the School Dinner wummen who know their weans better than anyone else. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Jupiter 1st Oct 2010, 11:38am

Free fruit is to be retained in nurseries and Nurture classes only in an effort to save public money.Annnounced today.

Posted by: Jimmuck 1st Oct 2010, 02:53pm

What the hell happened tae 'looking efter yurr ain bairns' if ye cannie afford fresh fruit furr yurr wains?? don't huvv bliddy wains .... ah'm sick tae death aboot hearing that WE huftae help oot oor 'fellows' WHY?? that's why the world's population is getting ootta haun .... ma mother an' faither worked aw thurr days, if therr wiss fresh fruit oan the table?? ... mebbe a banana, mebbe some apples Ohhhh! ye want Mangos or mair exotic fare etc??
OOR diet hudd canned pears, oranges an' ma mammy used tae 'treat hursell' tae a wee poke of grapes noo an again an' we never suffered fae 'deprivation' ah'm 6'3" an' aw ma bothers an' sisters (6) wurr aw big strappin people in fact ma sister Jacqueline cuid 'belt' maist o' the fellas oan oor street, LoL!

Ah detest politicians as much as the next wan, bit turn yurr wrath at the lazy bazzas thit 'smoke an' drink' thurr money away or STERILIZE WELFARE COUPLES THAT CHURN OOT WAINS BIT WON'T DAE A DAY'S WORK!
an' dae like France has jist dunn, throw oot refugees who are a financial burden tae the country NOW!
Spend your Tax money on your children, check out the Charities you do donate too and make folk responsible for themselves! Temporary assistance is a virtue, permanent assistance is FRAUD!