If he was the child of a single mother, newly arrived in Britain and living in a tower block, his full-time place at the local nursery school would have been a formality.
But, unfortunately for Christopher Townsend, he happens to have an English-speaking mother and father and live in a nice home with a garden.

That, according to the nursery's admissions criteria, means he is last in line when it comes to getting a place.

Christopher's mother Nicki has therefore been told that her son will be allowed to attend only on a part-time basis.
St Werburgh's Park Nursery School in Bristol says it is pre-empting a council-wide policy on admissions which is due to come into force in September 2005.

It has emerged that nurseries across the country could adopt similar policies when allocating spare places.

'Really unfair'


Christopher's mother, an occupational therapist, said: "I was told he did not fit the criteria as he had English as his first language and came from a home with a garden. I was shocked and surprised. It is really unfair that children and parents who have lived in the locality all their lives are being penalised."

Miss Townsend, 39, has lived within a stone's throw of the nursery in Eastville, Bristol, for five years with Christopher's father, occupational therapy assistant Tony Duggan, also 39. She is furious that her son's education is being jeopardised.

"I think it is important that children from all cultures and backgrounds get to mix at school," she said.

"If they need help with their English they should be given every opportunity but it shouldn't be at the expense of other children's education.

"I don't see what having a garden has to do with my son's educational needs."

National guidance


Bristol City Council says the new policy 'reflects' national guidance which recommends surplus nursery places should be targeted at 'disadvantaged' children.

Every three and four-year-old is entitled to a free part-time nursery place but many parents want full-time provision.

Some nurseries are able to offer full-time places if they do not have enough applicants to fill their part-time places.

When deciding how to allocate the places, nurseries in Bristol are told to prioritise children 'in need'. This includes asylum seekers, the disabled, children in care and those on the social services 'at risk' register.

After that, it is left up to nurseries to decide how to allocate any full-time places they are able to offer.

Bristol City Council is about to introduce further detailed criteria which takes into account parents' income, standard of living, health and psychological state.

'Aim to help disadvantaged children'


St Werburgh's serves an inner-city area with a "wide social and ethnic mix", according to the schools watchdog Ofsted. Around a third of pupils are from ethnic minorities and a quarter do not have English as their first language.

The acting head teacher of St Werburgh's, Liz Jenkins, defended her decision to reject Christopher. "We aim to help children from disadvantaged families," she said.

"The policy does include factors such as not having a garden and having English as an additional language but they are not the sole criteria."

A spokesman for Bristol City Council said: "We are consulting on revised admissions policies which are in line with national guidelines. These say that provision needs to be targeted at disadvantaged children."

Bristol Tory councillor Albert Murphy condemned the "disgusting" decision to reject Christopher. "I find it madness," he said. "He's a little child and he's been used as a pawn.

"There was a time when we used to get accused of discriminating against ethnic minorities but now we've gone the other way - we're discriminating against our own kind."

Originally posted by t020
Every three and four-year-old is entitled to a free part-time nursery place

This is one example of the benefits that the Labour Government has introduced to the country since it came to power.

t020, when you quote something verbatim it is only polite to give us a link to the source so we can evaluate the quality of the report - especially when you are posting such pap as this. :thumbsup:

If you had done a little more research you would find that the child already has a nursery place that he attends, and the school in question has a specific priority policy of admitting children from disadvantaged backgrounds and as a result is heavily over-subscribed.

The child was offered a part time place, just not a full time one because of the schools full time priority for children who have suffered abuse, violence, poverty, disability, special needs or have parents with any of the above.

If you are suggesting this is wrong then the school is obviously a victim of its own success in meeting the needs of the disadvantaged.

What this selfish mother doesn't realise is that, if admitted, her child would have given up a perfectly good place somewhere else to take up a valuable place that a disadvantaged child would have benefited from.

Now THAT would be unfair.

Originally posted by Tony
t020, when you quote something verbatim it is only polite to give us a link to the source so we can evaluate the quality of the report - especially when you are posting such pap as this. :thumbsup:

If you had done a little more research you would find that the child already has a nursery place that he attends, and the school in question has a specific priority policy of admitting children from disadvantaged backgrounds and as a result is heavily over-subscribed.

The child was offered a part time place, just not a full time one because of the schools full time priority for children who have suffered abuse, violence, poverty, disability, special needs or have parents with any of the above.

If you are suggesting this is wrong then the school is obviously a victim of its own success in meeting the needs of the disadvantaged.

What this selfish mother doesn't realise is that, if admitted, her child would have given up a perfectly good place somewhere else to take up a valuable place that a disadvantaged child would have benefited from.

Now THAT would be unfair.


Here, here. I couldn't have put it better myself.:thumbsup:

OURAGE RANT RANT RANT SEND THEM ALL BACK!!


Oh, sorry this is just another 'flag story' isn't it?

Thought I'd clicked on Dailymail.com as this was the first thing I saw.

Why did you post this exactly? Were you trying to make some point that "they" somehow have some over "us" and therefore "something must be done"?

That Tory Councillor sounds like a total cnut if you ask me

sad sad sad

Im sorry guys but i back t020 on this one. I read it in the Metro on the bus yesterday and how t020 told it is how the metro did. It simply said he wasnt refused because he was healthy or wasnt living in poverty it was because "his first language was english" and the house he lived in had a garden. So this is punishing his parents for having good jobs and getting a nice house with a garden and for not beating their kids and for not learning there so arabic, somolian etc at a young age.
At the end of the day it was a PUBLUC nursery. There are school espesialy for disabled and spesial needs children that able children cant attend. Its simple the over run of asylum seekers has taken over.

Fuzbuz, you don't need to apologise for 'backing t020'. You might consider seeking help and advice however. :)

I do wish jumped up cub reporters would give up trying to turn anecdotal incidents into national scandals, its so pointless.

You like Metro do you t020? Good paper that one.

Another non-story.

The trouble with the metro is it prints yesterdays news taken from the daily mail or some other hate-inciting tabloid. The story is possibly identifying an underlying problem and I guess things like this do happen, it's just a shame you can't get a balanced argument or both sides of the story. These papers just jump on half-truths and print bits of them!
My view is people should not have kids unless they can afford them and cater for their needs, so which ever side you take it's wrong! This couple should be able to put their child in a Nursery close to their home, they work hard any pay their way. At the same time disadvantaged children should be given a chance at a better life. The Bristol couple probably have a car so if they do have a place at another Nursery, they probably have the means to get him there with out much inconvenience. Then again, if people who don't have the means to raise children on their own they should stop bloody breeding. Eeeeeee, I don't know! We are not given enough accurate information to do anything apart from ignore this or get angry! this is why I don't read these papers.

I agree with that neeeeeeeeeek but this woman has lived in the schools catchment area for 5 years and england all her life. Why should she send her son to another nursery meaning getting up earlier, paying petrol etc for overbread social Seekers who as the metro stated "dont speak english as a 1st language" meaning they probably werent even in the catchment area 5 weeks ago!!!!!

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
Then again, if people who don't have the means to raise children on their own they should stop bloody breeding.

... and they should not be allowed to claim any state benefits for their children unless they are first sterilised.

Unless of course ... you as a tax payer are happy to pay for other peoples offspring?

fuzbuz - you are treading a fineline there: "overbread social seekers" (I assume you mean overbred asylum seekers) and "they probably weren't even in the catchment area 5 weeks ago" and "overun with asylum seekers" betrays a woeful ignorance and intolerance on your part, not to mention incredibly prejudicial generalisations about people whom you know nothing about.


And as for "that's how the metro reported it" sheesh, well I guess it must be true.



:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jamie
... and they should not be allowed to claim any state benefits for their children unless they are first sterilised.

Unless of course ... you as a tax payer are happy to pay for other peoples offspring?

talk about extremes, in this thread we've just swung from ultra conservative to totalitarian China.

Are you seriously stating that people should be sterilised in order to claim benfits for their children?

I have a solution to this woman's problems and I promise that it will rub a few people up the wrong way on this forum.

Why don't they introduce a two tier nursery system. Basically child places can be means tested in line to parental earnings. So, the poor and deprived can get free places for their children and give them their right to a good start in life and the better off in society can pay for their little darlings to attend a private nursery - thus freeing up valuable places :thumbsup:

Originally posted by theflyingfish
Are you seriously stating that people should be sterilised in order to claim benfits for their children?

No of course not !!!

But I do think we live in a system where people are rewarded (at the expense of hard working tax payers) for not working and breeding like rabbits.

I take it that no-one objects to paying for the needs of such people and their offspring ...

Social Seekers are what i said people who will never get off there arses and would rather claim off the social i did not aim this at asylam seekers!!!!!!!

And as for the catchment area think, am i lying?? You tell me!!

And yes we are over run simply because so many asylam seekers are coming in to Britain but the schools, hospitals etc have not expanded! There for its leaving the british tax payer even worse than they were when just the brits were claimind benifits. As im tryin to say you cant get 1000 children into a nursery, school, hospital (you name it) thats meant to hold 300 leaving the hard working people stumped. In a couple of years time education will be only for the disadvantaged!! This is not asylam seekers faults its thegoverment!!!!!!!!!!!

so theflyingfish question that!!!!

I think child benefits of any nature should be restriced to one child only, if people want more then they should be able to fund and look after them on their own. This should encompas all people from all areas of society. It seems to me we are breeding ourselves stupid..

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
I think child benefits of any nature should be restriced to one child only, if people want more then they should be able to fund and look after them on their own. This should encompas all people from all areas of society. It seems to me we are breeding ourselves stupid..

A few problems with this:

If it's restricted to one child then you're condemning subsequent children to starvation or the situation which prevailed in China where parents threw out unwanted children at birth.

How do you intend to police this birth control policy?

If we are breeding ourselves stupid why have we got an ageing population and why do we require regular immigration to maintain the workforce?

There are enough school places in this country for everyone. I have never heard of a place where there are 3 pupils competing for every place (your example).

Education will only be for the disadvantaged!? Do me a favour, even with a labour government this country has managed to cement access to quality education in the hands of the middle classes, and it will get worse as education discourse moves to bang on about 'choice' - the only people who benefit are those that can afford it and this happening now - who moves to the catchement areas with quality schools? Sure as hell not the disadvantaged?

I also wonder exactly how many asylum seekers constitute 'over running'. I just looked on the home office site and in 2001 there were less that 100,000 applications in 2001. Are you telling me that this staggering 0.1% of our population is overunning our schools and hospitals?

What about Migrants from the EU? Australia, New Zealand and South Africa? I am willing to bet money that these groups far outweight asylum seekers, yet receive no vitriol whatsoever.

While we are on demographics as for breeding ourselves stupid our population is actually ageing - there are very good social and economic arguments to increase the birthrate. Its our grand parents who are a bigger drain on the tax payer, not child benefits.

As

Originally posted by t020
Miss Townsend, 39, has lived within a stone's throw of the nursery in Eastville, Bristol, for five years with Christopher's father, occupational therapy assistant Tony Duggan, also 39. She is furious that her son's education is being jeopardised.


t020 supporting an unmarried mother? Wow, I thought he was making progress.

Until I saw who the rant was aimed at.

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
I think child benefits of any nature should be restriced to one child only, if people want more then they should be able to fund and look after them on their own. This should encompas all people from all areas of society. It seems to me we are breeding ourselves stupid..

That sounds reasonable and fair to me neeeeeeeeeek.

Help people out to a degree ... but not to the extent where they are taking the p***.

I do feel that we live in a system which rewards irresponsible behaviour and punishes responsible behaviour.

On the one hand ... I think it is a good thing that poorer families are helped financially ...

On the other ... there should also be a mechanism to prevent people leeching off the system.

Hey all,

As per usual a perfectly straightforward incident has been warped by ranting tories to try and fit with their twisted view on the state of the public sector.

In my previous job I was instrumental in developing childcare support for disadvantaged parents, particularly single mothers and teenage parents. The broad aim was to encourage participation in further education by breaking doen barriers to access, childcare being the greatest obstacle.

What really is the issue here is that for years and years the middle classes have been incredibly savvy in exploiting these types of public sector support schemes. The people who these initiatives are aimed at are usually out of the loop in terms of access to information. The family here probably have no entitlement whatsoever for childcare support but in the past their peers have been successful in exploiting positive steps taken by the public sector.

Why should a married couple with dual income and their own home be provided with subsidised childcare when someone who is desperate to work and improve their own lot is clearly the more deserving receipient?

Childcare is one of the burning issues in the public sector at the moment with a clear lack of provision, and it persists as a major barrier to employment, training or education. It is only fair that those who cannot pay for it should be provided with it so that they can become a productive part of society.

M

OK then, also start using old people as fuel.. kill 2 birds with 1 stone.. save on fossil fuel, reduce the aging population.. Drastic measures are needed if we are going to survive.. In fact NO, forget it.. the quicker us pesky humans wipe ourselves out the quicker this planet can recover...

What on earth is all this about resiricting the number of children that people can have? As the flyingfish says, our population is shrinking (yes, even as we are being over run), and soon there will be more pensioners than earning taxpayers. And people generally do make sensible decisions about how to plan a family, I fail to see how common sense should be incentivised by government.

An interesting post from Mattski, bringing this thread back to subject. This is essentially about means testing, and making sure that the (relatively scarce) resources go to those who would benefit most from them. This is at the heart of many local and national government planning decisions.

TheFlyingfish, My aunty had a rite job getting my cousin in to a public school so when she had my other cousin she put his name down when he was 1 week old!! I also did and enquiery for my brother and i was told that a particular school had 4 places in total all in the wrong years so i asked if he could be put on a waiting list of some sort but she told me they already had 27 peeps on the list!! Also my grandma was waitin for a hip replacement for 2 years. But as you said we arnt over crowded!!!

Yes Mattski u have a point. But why should hard working tax paying people be punished with no public childcare!!!!! erm am i missing something here as i assume these people on "JOB SEEKERS ALLOWENCE" deserve spot on public services. Im sorry but iv being braught up in a way that hard work means rewards. I know people lets all scrounge off the social and us and our children will have a better life!!!

My aunty had a rite job getting my cousin in to a public school

Do you mean a public school, or do you mean a state school? If you mean a public school, how is it anything to do with the government if a business has more customers than it can serve?

Yea people sorry a state school!!!!!!

Originally posted by fuzbuz
TheFlyingfish, My aunty had a rite job getting my cousin in to a public school so when she had my other cousin she put his name down when he was 1 week old!! I also did and enquiery for my brother and i was told that a particular school had 4 places in total all in the wrong years so i asked if he could be put on a waiting list of some sort but she told me they already had 27 peeps on the list!! Also my grandma was waitin for a hip replacement for 2 years. But as you said we arnt over crowded!!!

Am I correct in assuming that the school in question is the one that your Aunt considered the best in the area for your cousins?

Can I also assume that she would have had no problems, getting her child into a far worse school?

Who is reponsible for the waiting list at the the good school? massively simplifying the issue, I would say that it is probably the better off people who are getting their kids into that school, even people who move to the area to get their kids into that school?

The problem is not over crowding, it is a question of equity - if all schools could offer quality education to sectors of society this situation would not exist in the first place.
And letting Mothers like that in the original post dicate admissions policy would make this situation far worse as those disadvantaged have to look elsewhere and end up with the **** that's left.

Hey Fuzbuz,

Of course, we should see the fruits of our labour but there is also a fundamental issue of social support and cohesion here.

It is exactly the sort of people who are on JSA who should be receiving childcare support. In fact there is a direct link between receipt of JSA and Childcare: the policy shift back in the mid nineties to JSA means that you have to be actively seeking employment to qualify for financial assistance and without childcare, for some, this is not possible.

In an ideal world we would see free childcare provision for all, and in fact there is a national childcare stratgey which is working towards this, albeit in a limited way. But for now we have to work with what we have and I will happily contribute through the taxation system to support those who are less fortunate than myself but who are struglling towards equipping themselves with skills which will, ultimately, benefit the wider community

M.

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
I Why don't they introduce a two tier nursery system. Basically child places can be means tested in line to parental earnings. So, the poor and deprived can get free places for their children and give them their right to a good start in life and the better off in society can pay for their little darlings to attend a private nursery - thus freeing up valuable places :thumbsup:

So who exactly do you think pays for these 'free' nursery places? You see they aren't free at all. The money isn't just conjured up from nowhere, it comes from the taxes that WORKING people pay. So you think that is fair to make them pay twice ie take their taxes and then tell them to go pay again privately.

People who breed without the means to support their offspring are totally irresponsible. Why the hell should the state pick up the tab for those who spend all their lives sat on their fat backsides doing nothing but smoke all day and procreate all night? :rant:

No my aunty didnt go for a particulally goot school its just the local shiregreen school she tried beck and was told she hadnt a chance then heartly brook and was told the same then southy green then she went to hatfield who tried to help and thats where she is now.

People who breed without the means to support their offspring are totally irresponsible. Why the hell should the state pick up the tab for those who spend all their lives sat on their fat backsides doing nothing but smoke all day and procreate all night?

With you Mo.

Originally posted by Mattski
... I will happily contribute through the taxation system to support those who are less fortunate than myself but who are struglling towards equipping themselves with skills which will, ultimately, benefit the wider community

Originally posted by Mo
People who breed without the means to support their offspring are totally irresponsible. Why the hell should the state pick up the tab for those who spend all their lives sat on their fat backsides doing nothing but smoke all day and procreate all night?

I agree with both of you.

People who are disadvantaged yet still working hard to improve their lot in life ... should be given the help and support they need ... and I don't mind paying for this through taxes.

At the same time ... there are people who will take advantage of this help ... and are happy to "spend all their lives sat on their fat backsides doing nothing but smoke all day and procreate all night".

We need a system which effectively targets help and support towards those in genuine need ... and ... also prevents people from taking advantage and sponging off tax payers.

Jamie,

I agree absolutely, but the system has to extend to all sectors of society. There are millions of pounds being lost through various tax loopholes which are being exploited by those who can afford specialist tax solicitors.

The poor have always been a soft target when the public are misdirected over the issue of public spending and taxation. We don't often hear of the millions of pounds of public expenditure on projects where the only beneficiaries are private shareholders (the Skye bridge project, for example).

And we also need to find a replacement for the 'McJobs' which in turn replaced traditional manufacturing positions. It is, to me atleast, unsurprising that there is resistance to join the workforce if the only jobs on offer give little in the way of self esteem, money or stability.

M

Originally posted by Mo
Why the hell should the state pick up the tab for those who spend all their lives sat on their fat backsides doing nothing but smoke all day and procreate all night? :rant:
Yeah, you're right Mo. We should just leave them, with no money, until they're eventually forced to either live on the streets, or abandon their child and get a job. The child will have to be taken into care, which will cost more money than the single mother's benefits. But at least the woman will be paying taxes, huh? (Unless she chose to live on the streets...)

Originally posted by Mo
So who exactly do you think pays for these 'free' nursery places? You see they aren't free at all. The money isn't just conjured up from nowhere, it comes from the taxes that WORKING people pay. So you think that is fair to make them pay twice ie take their taxes and then tell them to go pay again privately.



Yes, I think it's fair for those who are fortunate enough to be working and getting paid good money to contribute towards their child's nursery place and freeing up a place for someone in a not-so comfortable position. So, is it fair that a single parent stuck on benefit has to stay at home cos they can't work due to having no access to free child care. Most people in this situation want to work, but can't cos of the current problems.

Aldo is screaming out for un experienced workers for about £6 per hour surely getting a job like that aint rocket. I mean if it a admin,reception,office etc ok but not for a general shop assistant. I mean comon they arnt in a position to be picky are they!!!!

Originally posted by Sidla
Yeah, you're right Mo. We should just leave them, with no money, until they're eventually forced to either live on the streets, or abandon their child and get a job. The child will have to be taken into care, which will cost more money than the single mother's benefits. But at least the woman will be paying taxes, huh? (Unless she chose to live on the streets...)

Thats right just give into them. Fine place the country would be if we all took the easy option.

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
So, is it fair that a single parent stuck on benefit has to stay at home cos they can't work due to having no access to free child care. Most people in this situation want to work, but can't cos of the current problems.

Sorry but I just don't accept this at all. Have you not seen the scale of benefits for childcare that can be claimed on the tax credits application form..it runs into thousands of pounds for childcare. Just looked at the form. Single parent working 16 hours or more £135 per week for one child or £200 for two plus children in childcare.

FFS I couldn't afford to spend that on childcare and they get it care of the state.

Mo,

Childcare is incredibly expensive and this is part of the problem. This is why it is important not only to provide free childcare for those who need it but do not have the means, but also to hugely expand the number of childcare places available.

Unfortuanely, some government ledgislation runs contrary to intself. The Children's Act, for instance, effectively criminalises any childcare which is not undertaken by either a close family member or someone who is registered as a childminder.

What we need is more childminders (and so increased emploment) and a corresponding number of supported mothers who then go on to find employment and contribute through tax.

M

Originally posted by Sidla
Yeah, you're right Mo. We should just leave them, with no money, until they're eventually forced to either live on the streets, or abandon their child and get a job. The child will have to be taken into care, which will cost more money than the single mother's benefits. But at least the woman will be paying taxes, huh? (Unless she chose to live on the streets...)

Then everyone would complain about all the homeless on the streets, and how our taxes are eaten up looking after them.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Fuzbuz, you don't need to apologise for 'backing t020'. You might consider seeking help and advice however. :)

I do wish jumped up cub reporters would give up trying to turn anecdotal incidents into national scandals, its so pointless.

You like Metro do you t020? Good paper that one.

Another non-story.


Actually the story was reported on BBC News 24 yesterday, but nowhere on the BBC news site could I find the story, so I knew exactly where to look for such a story... dailymail.co.uk. I don't understand why the BBC hid it from their website though.

Originally posted by Tony
t020, when you quote something verbatim it is only polite to give us a link to the source so we can evaluate the quality of the report - especially when you are posting such pap as this. :thumbsup:

If you had done a little more research you would find that the child already has a nursery place that he attends, and the school in question has a specific priority policy of admitting children from disadvantaged backgrounds and as a result is heavily over-subscribed.

And wheres your source on that? Afterall, it's only polite.

Originally posted by Abdul
t020 supporting an unmarried mother? Wow, I thought he was making progress.

Until I saw who the rant was aimed at.

Not a rant, just a copy and paste. I passed no comment on the matter - just stirring up a debate by reporting a story.

Originally posted by fuzbuz
At the end of the day it was a PUBLUC nursery. There are school espesialy for disabled and spesial needs children that able children cant attend. Its simple the over run of asylum seekers has taken over.
Well as I understand it, it was a PRIVATE school. In which case, they can do as they like.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with asylum seekers.

Originally posted by t020
And wheres your source on that? Afterall, it's only polite.

Well you still haven't provided your source, but mine is the Bristol Evening Post (http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145176&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144906&contentPK=10466219) which is the local paper to the school in question. I rather suspect that their quote from the headmistress is from an actual interview - not a cut n paste effort in a bonkers national rag like the Daily Mail.

If you actually take the time to read and understand the story in teh above link you should realise that your reporting was utterly misleading and just barmy right wing ranting.

My "reporting" was just showing people a story I heard about. The BBC carried the very same story on their TV news. If they had put it up on their website and I had pasted it from that would you be so quick to belittle it?

I most certainly would have yes! However, the BBC haven't put it on the website, so maybe that tells you something?

That they were scared of people knowing the truth? They broadcast the story on TV news reports, so maybe that tells you something?

It tells me that News 24 is rolling news as it comes into the newsroom from the wires, and that the website is a little more considered,

Anyway, so what? I appreciate your concern for the BBC (full of lefty PC do-gooding homosexual pinko social worker eh?), but the truth of the story does seem to be rather different to your original report. Where can it be found again - you didn't say?

Originally posted by Tony
Where can it be found again - you didn't say?

The Metro, that paper full of erudite reporting and generally found blowing around railway stations.

Originally posted by max
The Metro, that paper full of erudite reporting and generally found blowing around railway stations.

Wrong. As I explained previously, since the BBC tried to hide the story I knew exactly where I would find it.... dailymail.co.uk.

No matter how much people try to deny it, positive discrimination does occur.

Originally posted by t020
No matter how much people try to deny it, positive discrimination does occur.

OK, where does anybody pretend positive discrimination doesn't take place? If you actually read anybody else's posts defending the nursery you would realise people actually applaud positive discrimination. Caring people that is, not Daily Mail readers.

The headmistress is quoted as admitting that having a garden and speaking English as a first language plays a part in the admissions process........

Oh, now you're missing the point deliberately!

The school specialises in, shall we say, 'special needs' children. This child has no such special need, apart from a dozy and rather selfish mother.

There is equally no qualification not to speak English or have a garden. It's a question of merit in an oversubscribed specialist private nursery school.

No matter how hard you try, you can't build a case for discrimination of any kind here. That's before considering that the child has a place at another nursery. What sort of mother allows her child to become a political football for people who live all the way away in Sheffield to discuss on an internet forum?

Originally posted by t020
The headmistress is quoted as admitting that having a garden and speaking English as a first language plays a part in the admissions process........

Nobody's denying this, they are but 2 of 15 criteria.

Yeah you have a point - load of b***** really isn't it?

Originally posted by fuzbuz
Im sorry guys but i back t020 on this one. I read it in the Metro on the bus yesterday and how t020 told it is how the metro did. It simply said he wasnt refused because he was healthy or wasnt living in poverty it was because "his first language was english" and the house he lived in had a garden. So this is punishing his parents for having good jobs and getting a nice house with a garden and for not beating their kids and for not learning there so arabic, somolian etc at a young age.
At the end of the day it was a PUBLUC nursery. There are school espesialy for disabled and spesial needs children that able children cant attend. Its simple the over run of asylum seekers has taken over.
Don't trust the metro, not a newspaper. Best with fish and chips contained within!:D

Originally posted by Tony
What sort of mother allows her child to become a political football for people who live all the way away in Sheffield to discuss on an internet forum?

I was thinking that too. What is it with a certain cross-section of 'middle-class' individuals who run to the press everytime a decision doesn't go their way?

Look at the consumer rights sections of any broadsheet newspaper, and you'll see what I mean - many examples of people who want the newspapers to fight their case because they're too stupid and / or selfish to do things fairly.

Wow! I didn't realise that t020 read 'The Sun' in upper-class Ecclesall. :thumbsup: Nice one mate, you keep reading those wonderful stories but just don't try to stir up some kind of race row on this forum.
We can see right through you.

Actually Tony, the nursery WASNT a special needs school and i got the wrong word it was actually a state school and t020 is correct the head of the nursery stated that "as the childs first language was English and his home has a garden he wasnt eligible" My mum and dads home had a garden and they werent pertically well off, not well off enough to have to folk out in private schools anyway i may as well go on the dole now because by the time im older if im working and have a nice house with a garden my kids will suffer!!!

You seem to be right fuzbuz - I think it's a state school too after doing a bit of digging.

In any case, it does prioritise children with needs (maybe not the strict 'special needs' definition) and I personally think that's a good thing. The child still has a part time place, but you must agree that there are children that have more needs than others because of family circumstances.

I was reading an article in the Sunday Times this weekend about a school in Merseyside where they have a special class that is dedicated to such children. It was heart wrenching to read how neglected they are and how they crave the company of adults and other children who actually like them :cry: Surely they deserve a chance? Surely it's not being PC to give them extra time and effort? Surely they deserve a full time place more than a child who's parents just want to be able to go to work all day?

Such facilities have no place in the poltical arena.

what do you mean parents who want to work att day !!! Ant child thats over 3 years of age need to interact with other children weather their parents go to work or now. I personally find it pleasing that parents still want to work instead of living on out taxes. I know children with bad circumstances should get a little priorit but why should the children with a good up bringing suffer. My brother was in hospital untill he was 3 with him only having 1 kidney and its v weak there fore he didnt get much interaction with other kids and we had a job getting him in nurserry due to this. This is a bad circumstance so either way you cant win. However it didnt say because he wasnt a specian needs child it was that he only spoke english. This in my book is Racial discrimination as it said the school had a very high percentage of ethnic "minority" children.

fuzbuz.. calm down - I'm not having a go at you! It's not racial discrimination at all. This child already goes to a playgroup and has been offered a part time place at the school.

Cripes... he's hardly lacking interaction with other children... but his parents do both work. Makes you think doesn't it?

Originally posted by Mattski
Mo,

Childcare is incredibly expensive and this is part of the problem. This is why it is important not only to provide free childcare for those who need it but do not have the means, but also to hugely expand the number of childcare places available.

Unfortuanely, some government ledgislation runs contrary to intself. The Children's Act, for instance, effectively criminalises any childcare which is not undertaken by either a close family member or someone who is registered as a childminder.

What we need is more childminders (and so increased emploment) and a corresponding number of supported mothers who then go on to find employment and contribute through tax.

M

The problem though is that there are so many checks, tests and otherwise that rightly need to be done to determine a person's suitability to be looking after children, which tend to take a long time cos of the system's flaws, that a lot of people just can't be arsed with all the messing about of the forms and visits to the cop shop etc.

Hey Rich,

I agree that the present system is somewhat unwieldy but at the same time would you want some one to look after your kids who can't be arsed to fill in a few forms?

M

Originally posted by Mattski
Hey Rich,

I agree that the present system is somewhat unwieldy but at the same time would you want some one to look after your kids who can't be arsed to fill in a few forms?

M

No I wouldn't.

But to be perfectly honest I don't think I'd use paid for childminders anyway, I'd just send 'em to me mother's, because that way I can be sure they'd be in good hands....

That's not to say I'd completely rule it out though, but like going back to the job centre in my quest to get a job (long story, full of rants), I'd only use it as a last resort option.

i know your not having a go but the parents obviusly want their son to go to nursery whick is more educational than playgroup.
And what ****** you off more parents going back to work to support their family the best they can or u working off ur but to privide for their family whilst they sunbathe and relax all day eh!!! Think about that!! I kno what id want. Any it sounds racial to me!!

New Labour, New Danger

Another example of a hard working family whom pay taxes being disadvantaged because they worked towards a brighter future.

This isn't the good ship lolly pop, we should discourage people from living on benefits not make it adventageous.

A tiny minority of people in this country are disadvantaged in the truest sense of the word. We have free education, healthcare and housing for certain people. There are countries around the world that would and do kill for that level of advantage.

Lets stop pretending people in this, the fifth largest economy in the world are disadvantaged. If you can't manage on your own in the UK why should people who have managed have to bail you out

Spot on that Dylan_61. Iv speant the past year on £50 per wek and im 18 years old as a trainee administrator why should i put myself through being skint and having old clothes and taking pack up rather than eating out for lunch just to pay for sum bugger else? Beats me

Originally posted by dylan_61
New Labour, New Danger

Another example of a hard working family whom pay taxes being disadvantaged because they worked towards a brighter future.

This isn't the good ship lolly pop, we should discourage people from living on benefits not make it adventageous.

A tiny minority of people in this country are disadvantaged in the truest sense of the word. We have free education, healthcare and housing for certain people. There are countries around the world that would and do kill for that level of advantage.

Lets stop pretending people in this, the fifth largest economy in the world are disadvantaged. If you can't manage on your own in the UK why should people who have managed have to bail you out

Because if disadvantaged people can't get help out of the system, due to the fact that genuinely getting help out of the system is like getting blood out of a stone, what else do they do?! Go on the rob?!

Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of people who genuinely are seeking employment and need help to do that. If someone is struggling to survive while seeking work, what do you suppose we do to them?

I get the impression that some people think that as long as they're OK, then screw everyone else! Which is very easy to think if you've never been in a situation when you need help.

Are people here really arguing that having a welfare state is a bad idea in principle? Is having the NHS wrong in principle? Is this a time warp back to the Edwardian period?

Yup, thats about the size of it Ox!

When did this become a question of benefits anyway? The subject has nothing to do with benefits, it's about a child being refused admission to a school.

Originally posted by fuzbuz
Spot on that Dylan_61. Iv speant the past year on £50 per wek and im 18 years old as a trainee administrator why should i put myself through being skint and having old clothes and taking pack up rather than eating out for lunch just to pay for sum bugger else? Beats me

err - how many hours a week do you work, because there is a minimum wage you know!?

To be honest, if the people who have a problem with the kid being refused a place at the nursery school are also of a mind that the welfare state should be abolished, it would seem to me that they are bonkers. The welfare state question basically came from discussion of whether people who are 'disadvantaged' should be helped more than people who are 'advantaged' (however you choose to define those categories).

Its a bit difficult to continue on track when people are saying that no-one should help anyone else.

I work 37 hours per week and earn £50 pw min wage doesnt stand if you are training im training with the sheff council.
Im doing an NVQ u see.
Minght just sit on my arse pretend im job seeking and live off u lot!!!! Would that be ok guys as most off you seem to back it!! Some people who come to where i work are on New Deal courses and 99% of them turn up at gone 11 when the start at 9 and go home at 2.30 ish AND still get paid full!!!!!! Hmmmmm nice life eh!!!

do that if your conscience allows it. I don't care. I would vote to pay more tax to reduce the level of inequality between the haves and the have-nots in our society. I take your point that this has to come at the price of a few scroungers, but the benefit to society far outweighs the cost of a few people abusing the system. To be honest, rich people are a far bigger train on the Government's revenue by avoiding paying vast amounts of tax in the first place, by say investing in off-shore tax havens.

I think you are of the view that there should be NO safety net and that everyone who is unemployed, well its their own fault.

What about structural unemployment, when the economy changes in such a way that an entire industry is restructured and people simply aren't needed anymore and vast amounts of people are made unemplyed overnight? Need I mention Steel and Coal as examples? Do they reserve help from the rest of us who pay tax?

I suppose a general point here is do we as a society do enough for the middle classes (however that is defined) rather than those considered disadvantaged?

There appear to arguments both ways but as the middle clases generally pay more in taxes do they get a fair deal?

I have to admit that being black, gay, single parent etc etc can sometimes be an advantage in accessing state help.

Fuz, you are make a very dramatic assumption that all those claiming benefits are scroungers. I doubt that you really have enough experience to make such judgements. yes there are definitely scroungers in our society, which is a problem that needs addressing, but there are also a whole load of people who genuinely need help. Providing help for such people when they need it, means that more tax can be recouped when they are able to work. The alternative is just to let them die, homeless on the street. That would cost tax payers money too, keeping them out the way and removing the corpses etc...

i understand what ur saying flyingfish if someone gets made redundent etc thats fine a little help to get them back on their feet. I think you should be allowed to claim job seekers allowence, dole for about 2-3 months which gives you plenty of time to find work unless you have a very young child etc but if your your child is nursery eligble then it should apply!!!

sid how does being black or gay help in getting state help?

I suppose a general point here is do we as a society do enough for the middle classes (however that is defined) rather than those considered disadvantaged?

Yes. Wish the paranoid Daily Mail readers would stop bleating about how bad their lot is, it's really really BORING.

Originally posted by fuzbuz
i understand what ur saying flyingfish if someone gets made redundent etc thats fine a little help to get them back on their feet. I think you should be allowed to claim job seekers allowence, dole for about 2-3 months which gives you plenty of time to find work unless you have a very young child etc but if your your child is nursery eligble then it should apply!!!
You are only allowed to claim job seekers allowance for so long. It normally depends if you've been offered jobs and wether or not you accept them. I think you're only allowed to turn down 2 jobs before you lose your benefits. I can't be bothered researching, but I'm fairly sure this is more or less correct.

Anyway fuz, you seem to be under the impression that people can live extremely comfortable lives with just benefits as an income. If you want to quit your job and live off benefits, then please do, I'll bid you good luck. You'll soon find out, however, that you were a hell of a lot better off when you were working.

Originally posted by Lestat
Wow! I didn't realise that t020 read 'The Sun' in upper-class Ecclesall. :thumbsup: Nice one mate, you keep reading those wonderful stories but just don't try to stir up some kind of race row on this forum.
We can see right through you.

As mentioned 5 or 6 times (though I realise this could be hard for the illiterate among you) I saw the report on BBC news, and since I couldn't copy and paste it off their site I pasted it from the Daily Mail site. The Sun doesn't come into it anywhere, and Ecclesall isn't an area of aristocracy. Also, if you read the thread through you'd realise that I accepted that it was a load of rubbish, so I don't know what you're supposed to be seeing "right through".

Originally posted by fuzbuz

Minght just sit on my arse pretend im job seeking and live off u lot!!!!

Can I just ask why you put an "n" in "might"? I'm not being funny, I am genuinely intrigued.

Originally posted by fuzbuz
Im sorry guys but i back t020 on this one. I read it in the Metro on the bus yesterday and how t020 told it is how the metro did. It simply said he wasnt refused because he was healthy or wasnt living in poverty it was because "his first language was english" and the house he lived in had a garden. So this is punishing his parents for having good jobs and getting a nice house with a garden and for not beating their kids and for not learning there so arabic, somolian etc at a young age.
At the end of the day it was a PUBLUC nursery. There are school espesialy for disabled and spesial needs children that able children cant attend. Its simple the over run of asylum seekers has taken over.


I note the thread has digressed somewhat, but I would like to speak in favour of this nursery's policy...

If I had a british middle class kid, with a nice garden. I think there would be incredible value in them going to a school with people from other backgrounds.

If I had a foreign kid, in a strange country, with sod all garden and 5 floors of council flat to contend with, again I think there would be incredible value in them going to a school with people from other backgrounds.

I assume this policy is about creating a diverse school, with kid's from a whole range of backgrounds... this is probably best started at nursery age, by junior school it's probably too late to stem the inherent ****** drummed in by segregation.

So what if they have to travel a bit further to get to school?

Originally posted by t020
As mentioned 5 or 6 times (though I realise this could be hard for the illiterate among you) I saw the report on BBC news, and since I couldn't copy and paste it off their site I pasted it from the Daily Mail site. The Sun doesn't come into it anywhere, and Ecclesall isn't an area of aristocracy. Also, if you read the thread through you'd realise that I accepted that it was a load of rubbish, so I don't know what you're supposed to be seeing "right through".

So if you think the story is a load of rubbish, why did you post it? I am genuinley intrigued.

Originally posted by Smiler
So if you think the story is a load of rubbish, why did you post it? I am genuinley intrigued.

The Daily Mail probably also knew the story was a load of rubbish, but I would guess they chose to print it because it would serve their purpose of stirring up racial tensions. I wonder if it was posted on here for a similar reason?

Originally posted by Smiler
So if you think the story is a load of rubbish, why did you post it? I am genuinley intrigued.
Peoples opinions change; which I find out on a regular basis...