Chris_Sleeps Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 An excellent example; yes they are, but not into the zoo. The zoo was given Royal Charter (namely, they were allowed to build on such prime land) and is run by a private enterprise of a Zoological Society, a charity. There is some justification in charging because they have to make money. If the Zoological Society was funded by council tax then your point would stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 isnt there a park in rotherham that charges you to use the rides...and didn't you used to pay to use the boating lake at millhouses...nothing new with this one...at least down south they are not cutting services to the elderly...think they are bumping the money up... Didn't Sheffield Council sell off parts of Graves Park and attempt to sell other bits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Sheffield Lib Dems kept the cost of council tax down, but introduced charges for private residents for 'rat control' and various other services. The council featured have a council tax about half the amount of ours, apparently. Obviously, this is how they can afford it. That's Tory Councils for you! It's a great way of claiming council tax benefit back from poor families....(except they won't be able to afford it, so, won't get to use the facilities, so there'll be nothing gained, except a false mandate to close the facilities and sell off the park!). What next...a £2.50 charge for using the school playground, perhaps? And meanwhile, the government is failing miserably to tackle child poverty and Nick Clegg has renegged on his tackling child poverty pledges....Tories must be so proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 DV, there is no such thing as child poverty. It's the parents of the child that are poor, not the child itself. I'd go along with your other bumf though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 For the children of Wandsworth, the age of innocence ends this autumn when their council puts a price tag on playtime. Are the Guardian any better than tabloids? It appears not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 DV, there is no such thing as child poverty. It's the parents of the child that are poor, not the child itself. I'd go along with your other bumf though They’re only poor because they spend their social security money on alcohol and fags. The councils job is to provide a service using the funds available, some councils charge the person using the service, swimming, planning, building regs, meals on wheels etc, some services have to stop when money is in short supply. I see nothing wrong with charging for a park that is better than your average park as specially if it would have to close if there is no charge. They could have cut elderly services to fund it, and any other more important service to fund it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 How to make yourself even more popular. Don't say you weren't warned. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/12/tory-council-charge-children-playground?INTCMP=SRCH Perhaps we should wait for this story to be confirmed by a trustworthy source rather than the Labour Party newsletter? Even if this is true, don't forget this is in London, where most of the local residents will live in houses worth over half a million and earn over £50,000 a year. I'm sure they wouldn't miss spending £2.50 on their kids - it's cheaper than taking them swimming or to the pictures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Is this any different to having to pay to use council swimming pools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 If a decent play area was clean, safe and well maintained, I wouldn't mind paying a small amount, say a pound to use it, but £2.50 is a bit steep, especially if you have more than one young child. I have seen some play areas are a mess, with broken bottles, graffiti, etc. which makes it unsafe for children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Perhaps we should wait for this story to be confirmed by a trustworthy source rather than the Labour Party newsletter? Even if this is true, don't forget this is in London, where most of the local residents will live in houses worth over half a million and earn over £50,000 a year. I'm sure they wouldn't miss spending £2.50 on their kids - it's cheaper than taking them swimming or to the pictures! Yeah right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.