Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,499
and its a copout by alexander
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Number 4 on the list...
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Ok this is the first one of the day,and on this one 95% of us was in agreement that this dept should go making a saving of £3million ayear.
Community Wardens service.
The proposal is
(1)Community Wardens do not cover all areas across the county.
(2)Some feel that the local community should take responsibility for looking out for vulnerable people in their area and not rely on others to do it for them.
(3) Others point to some of the overlap in the responsibilities of Community Wardens, PCSOs, and voluntary police officers.
Against the Proposal.
(1) Some feel that Community Wardens are a focal point in the communities they serve and provide support to vulnerable people which they would otherwise not receive.
{2}The presence of Community Wardens reduces the fear of crime in the community.making the residents feel safer.
{3} Community Wardens help provide a central resource, raising community awareness of problems such as bogus callers and fly tipping.
The PCSOs found alot of support over this one,and I am in agreement with that to, the PCSOs cover most of the above and they do very well at it.
When the PCSOs first started coming onto the Streets,I was one of the first to say is will not help.
I was wrong in thinking that, and today I think they do avery good job and in some ways better even then the police themself.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I'm not sure why there are so many "wardens", call them what you will. I have the greatest respect for the PCSOs and not sure that we need different community people.
Make them all PCSOs, they could easily amalgamate their responsibilities and increase them too, so that they can impose on the spot fines for littering and dog-fouling.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Yes Roger,that is all good,
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Moving on.
Regeneration The Proposal is,
(a) Stop spending on regeneration projects,saving £3.8million.
For
(1) Some feel that the Councils work in support of business/tourism is not essential to their ability to attract trade and grow.
(2) Some feel that regeneration is a(nice to have " and is less appropriate dueing times of economic hardship.
Against
(1) Without the spending, we would not be able to attract new businesses into the County generating jobs.
{2) We are currently able to maximise the economic potential of Growth Areas, such as Thames Gateway, Ashford,Dover, etc.
{3} Kent economy benefits from the tourism and jobs created through investment in regeneration projects.
Well I am hoping for some real good feedbacks on this one ,"Over to you Roger."
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,637
I agree wish Roger about the "wardens" I have never been sure what was/is the point of having them.
Regeneration should not be KKC orientated it should be at local level where any money can in theory be better directed. Surely all councils are not as bad as DDC at promoting their areas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
This is very slow geting off the ground this morning must be because the clocks went back.
Anyway on we go.
The Proposal is Freedom pass.
{1} Reduce spending on the Freedom pass by £2million by raisiong the fixed charge from £100 to £200 per year. saving would be £2million.The Freedom pass is available to all 11-16year olds living in Kent,for a fixed sum of £100 per year, On average it represents excellent value as each pass equates to an average of £500 worth of travel.
For the Proposal
(1) Some feel that although it is a useful thing to have it is not an essential service.
(2) Some feel that it should not be the role of KCC to help with affordability and accessibility of public transport-people choose where they live and go to school.
(3)If a) £200 still provides a "good deal" compared to the cost of normal public transport or use of cars.
IF b) Many parents can afford bus fares for their children without public subsidy.
Against the Proposal.
(1) It has been very popular and the numbers of young people (over 25,000) who have one demonstrates its success.
(2) Increasing the charge could make it unaffordable for larger families.
{3) Its more environmentally friendly than relying on Mum or Dad to take them places in their car,and reduces congestion with fewer cars on the roads.
(4) Some feel that it enables children to attend the school of their choice,regardless of distance and enable young people to access a wide range of leisure & cultural outside school.
There was alot of talk about this one some were saying that there sould be some kind of means test ,but my view is it should say at £100 per year.
So what do you think?
This is my last one of the morning I have to go out,but still alot more to come later.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Mrs Higgins You are inline with what I said at the meeting thank you.As I said we are looking at a £20million saving,so add it up as we go along aand see where we all end up.at this time reading beween the lines we are about £6million and not half way yet,so there are savings to be made without cuting to many services to the public.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
getting back to the community wardens i have to agree that i am not sure what their function is, with p.c.s.o's no problem everyone knows who there one is and in most cases they do an excellent job.
the freedom pass has already gone up fro 50 to 100 quid, doubling it again must be out of the question.
parents with 4 children would struggle to find £.800 each year with money the way it is.
thanks for the detailed update vic, my suspicion is that k.c.c. are going to shift the blame for the cuts on the people at the forum there.
pretty shrewd stuff.
Absolutely Howard along with. The phrase. We took our lead from the people of Kent
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,499
certainly most posters have not commented and im still digesting the 19 proposals
so hardly a forum agreement on the cuts
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
I think it is difficult to agree or disagree without all the facts presented in a comprehensible way.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,499
thats my problem at the moment
probably good if paulb or someone could get hold of the paperwork.
that said the feedback on the meeting should be applauded
and hopefully in time some kind of forum response can go forward
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Thank you for your posts as you are reading it we done the same in aroom with each group,I have try to present it to you in the same way that it was for us,but we did not have the time to hang about on each proposal, you are having as much time as you like,we had about one hr .I did say that this should have been handed out to us when we first got there but it was not, we only got it in the last hour before the meeting came to a end.so we move on to the next one.
The proposal is
Raise eligibility criteria for those elderly people who get help in thir own home with getting-up, washing and meals.
Approximately 6,300 elderly people currently get help in their own homes.
This costs £36million( including £11 million raised through charges.)
If we raise the bar on when people are entitled to this help.
The saving would be £3million per year.
For the Proposal.
(1) Could family and neighbours do more to help?
(2)Individuals could become dependent on help which could lead to them losing their independence and needing even more help in the future.
(3)Could more of the cost be recovered by charging more for those who can afford to pay for the care they receive.
Against the Proposal.
(1) There are few alternatives for those who want to retain their independence living in their own home.
(2) If KCC don,t provide help at the early stages, people could quickly lose their independence and the cost more in the long run requiring residential care.
(3) Elderly people have paid taxes all their lives and should be entitled to help when they need it.
Over this one we were 100% against the proposal. I have all the paper work, and that is what you are seeing now.
The rest was talk, we will be geting a feedback on the meeting at some point and that will be pass on to you on the forum.
What I plan to do after it is all done is print it all off and send to the KCC. I hope you are all in agreement with that ,if not tell me so.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
hardly fair to give the panel only an hour to reach a decision on such a scale.
i suppose that if savings have to be made then the better off should have to shell out something if that is the only choice.
the help from families and neighbours is just a cop out, they would be doing it now if they could.
A few months ago KCC where publising the fact that they havnt raised the threshold for recieving care at home from substantial to critical
( I may have the terminology slightly wrong )
The way they managed this was by increasing the charges to people whohave to pay for the care . Not everyone has to pay it is means tested.
It now seems that they have tried to get a double whammy , increase the charges to those who have to pay and raise the threshold as well .
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Next.
Transport for children with special needs.
The Proposal.
Put a limit on the amount we will pay for taxis to get children with special needs to school.
We transport around 3,700children with special educational needs to school every day,which costs £17million per year. Currently each child is taken individivually via taxi from home to school and back again. Each year taxi companies increase the prices they charge to us.
The saving on this Proposal would be £2million per year.
The Proposal is
(1) Parents or carers already doing the "School run" from similar start and end destinations could also take a child currently travelling by taxi.
(2)If children were to be transported in shared taxis it would reduce the amount of taxis required, resulting in financial saving,less congestion and carbon emissions.
(3) Should it be a parents responsibility to get their children to school.
Against the proposal
(1) Some feel that children with Special Educational needs should be entitled to attend the best school for their needs regardless of its location,and their transport there and back should be funded.
(2)Limiting the amount we pay to taxi firms may mean they refuse to provide the service beyond the minimal distance which could leave vulnerable children without transport.
(3)Children with special needs cannot access alternative forms of transport as easily as other children and need supervision.
I think there is a saving to be made here,By taxis picking more up ,I feel there is no need to have one taxi for each child.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,680
Vic you can be such a drama queen at times - this whole thread was meant to be about the KCC Consultation and proposals and you have yet again managed to make it about you. Good job I like you Vic.
Anyway onto the Proposals
1 - Lighting - absolutely on side and estate roads this should be turned off between midnight and 6am
2 - Arts & Sport - If the arts grants were actually targetted at local artists working with their communities I would argue to keep it but given that far to many of the grants are to artists not resident in the county then I would cut it - as for the Sports Unit I think we need to do as much as possible to get kids off their fat backsides and involved so should keep it but target it solely at school age groups
3 - Community Wardens - yes there is ovelap between various uniformed services, however my local PCSO is useless and my Community Warden is great, she knows all the local scrotes and their families and has a great way of sorting problems out. I agree we do not need more then one role here but assignment should be on the basis of performance. Also if we expect PCSOs to cover we can expect a bigger Kent Police precept on our tax bills - of course that isnt KCCs problem is it?
4 - Regeneration - frankly £3.8m is a drop in the ocean for what needs spending in East Kent alone, so KCC should cut this but work closely with district and central government to ensure that Kent gets its fair share of grants available, that these are directed to the places of maximum benefit to the community and they ensure adequate co-ordination of county and district departments.
5 - Freedom Passes - anything that helps get kids out of cars is good anything that reduces car journeys is good. Increasing the fixed fee would have a huge impact on the people who use this the most so for me this is a no - lets keep it as it is for now and review again in 2 years time.
6 - Home Help Eligibility - whilst this is a significant saving there is no alternative as family and friends etc will be involved as much as they can - the danger here is we remove any form of independence from these pensioners and either make them prisoners in their own homes or institutionalise them - so a no from me
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Sorry Ross,I do not know what you mean with that remark,but it does not matter,but what is good the way you are givng feedback to the Proposals. thank you.I need to rest
the old eyes.