Marple Community Forum & Noticeboard
July 23, 2014, 07:16:55 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Visit the Main Site

News: Banner Adverts on this site raise £1,000 for Skatepark Project
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  

Murillo's Tapas Restaurant.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Cutting school crossing patrols by 40% across Stockport  (Read 1598 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sgk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 371



« on: August 19, 2012, 11:30:39 AM »

I see some of the local councillors are getting some bad publicity over on the Hazel Grove forum.

http://www.hazel-grove.co.uk/forum/name-and-shame-t3595-p1.html

By the sounds of it, they had a choice of cutting school crossing patrols (lollipop men/ladies?) by 40% or cutting the issues of Stockport Review by 50%.  Decided to cut the school crossings and leave the newsletter untouched. 

Shame.
Logged
wheels
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 831


« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2012, 01:53:34 PM »

I think this is nonesense. A clear formula measuring traffic/pedestrian conflict was applied  to a review of school crossing patrols some locations were lost other new ones  were introduced. In any event the decision was not crossing patrols v civic review and to link them is just silly.

Further the Civic Review has in fact been cut from 6 editions to four per year so has taken its hit along with other council services. I also if it were a choce ibetween the two would argue for the civic review as i think something that goes through every door and gets people using therefore protecting council services and thinking about things such as obesity is of greater value than a crossing for a few hundred children.

Further evidence shows that there has been a reduction in traffic accidents at the points at which crossing patrols have been removed and finally there are currently 10 crossing patrols for which the council is unable to recruit a person to person it.
Logged
sgk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 371



« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2012, 11:48:10 PM »

I think this is nonesense. A clear formula measuring traffic/pedestrian conflict was applied  to a review of school crossing patrols some locations were lost other new ones  were introduced. In any event the decision was not crossing patrols v civic review and to link them is just silly.

Looking at the minutes, the Council Meeting requested a 50% cut in "The Review" newsletter budget, in order to help pay for the crossing patrols, so there does seem to be a link there.

This Council Meeting therefore requests:-
• that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Executive Councillors, identify funding from existing resources within the Marketing and Communications Budget to restore the services identified, including a 50% cut in the number of issues of “The Review”;
• that this matter is referred to the Executive with the recommendation that the view of this Council Meeting, to reverse their earlier decision, is accepted; and
• that this course of action follows consultation with parents, headteachers, school governors and local councillors.
For the motion 31, against 32
MOTION NOT CARRIED


Further the Civic Review has in fact been cut from 6 editions to four per year so has taken its hit along with other council services. I also if it were a choce ibetween the two would argue for the civic review as i think something that goes through every door and gets people using therefore protecting council services and thinking about things such as obesity is of greater value than a crossing for a few hundred children.

Yes, meanwhile the school crossings had a big cut of 40% last year, which also gained some protests. Stockport Express 03 Aug 2011 : Parents protest as lollipop ladies axed

Further evidence shows that there has been a reduction in traffic accidents at the points at which crossing patrols have been removed and finally there are currently 10 crossing patrols for which the council is unable to recruit a person to person it.

Yes, it means that while the council meeting did request "school crossing patrols which were staffed should be re-established as soon as possible, and that those sites which were identified as vacant be re-examined", regrettably there's no money to action this, so won't be done.
Logged
simonesaffron
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 542


« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2012, 10:23:37 AM »

When stated that the "Council meeting requested", it doesn't actually mean the whole Council in attendance, just that, that particular council meeting was used as a catalyst to make that specific request. This request could have been made by a group of people or it could even have been made by one person.  In this instance it was made by the Labour Party as a motion which was opposed by the LibDems and as  has been pointed out was defeated on the night.
Logged
wheels
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 831


« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2012, 12:06:55 PM »

I think this is nonesense. A clear formula measuring traffic/pedestrian conflict was applied  to a review of school crossing patrols some locations were lost other new ones  were introduced. In any event the decision was not crossing patrols v civic review and to link them is just silly.

Looking at the minutes, the Council Meeting requested a 50% cut in "The Review" newsletter budget, in order to help pay for the crossing patrols, so there does seem to be a link there.

This Council Meeting therefore requests:-
• that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Executive Councillors, identify funding from existing resources within the Marketing and Communications Budget to restore the services identified, including a 50% cut in the number of issues of “The Review”;
• that this matter is referred to the Executive with the recommendation that the view of this Council Meeting, to reverse their earlier decision, is accepted; and
• that this course of action follows consultation with parents, headteachers, school governors and local councillors.
For the motion 31, against 32
MOTION NOT CARRIED


A motion by the opposition does not in fact mean its linked in any way other than as a ploy by them. So this is meanlingless

Further the Civic Review has in fact been cut from 6 editions to four per year so has taken its hit along with other council services. I also if it were a choce ibetween the two would argue for the civic review as i think something that goes through every door and gets people using therefore protecting council services and thinking about things such as obesity is of greater value than a crossing for a few hundred children.

Yes, meanwhile the school crossings had a big cut of 40% last year, which also gained some protests. Stockport Express 03 Aug 2011 : Parents protest as lollipop ladies axed

Are you suggesting mob rule shouldprevail over the democratic process?Huh??

Further evidence shows that there has been a reduction in traffic accidents at the points at which crossing patrols have been removed and finally there are currently 10 crossing patrols for which the council is unable to recruit a person to person it.

Yes, it means that while the council meeting did request "school crossing patrols which were staffed should be re-established as soon as possible, and that those sites which were identified as vacant be re-examined", regrettably there's no money to action this, so won't be done.

Logged
wheels
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 831


« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2012, 12:12:02 PM »

When stated that the "Council meeting requested", it doesn't actually mean the whole Council in attendance, just that, that particular council meeting was used as a catalyst to make that specific request. This request could have been made by a group of people or it could even have been made by one person.  In this instance it was made by the Labour Party as a motion which was opposed by the LibDems and as  has been pointed out was defeated on the night.


Quite right Simone there is no linkage between the the crossing patrols and the civic review other than as a ploy by the opposition for simple  political reason. They seem more interested in such activity rather than meaningfully engaging.
Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1297



« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2012, 10:01:53 PM »

Is it not possible to cut both and reduce council tax? So many lollipop peeps are at crossings anyway, kids aren't learning a sense of danger.
Logged
mabel
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2012, 07:37:35 PM »

How true.  Nothing like seeing a few kids knocked down to teach them a sense of danger!!
Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1297



« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2012, 11:52:47 PM »

How true.  Nothing like seeing a few kids knocked down to teach them a sense of danger!!


Obviously that's not the idea, however, kids need to Learn how to deal with the road themselves. No kid over the age of 7 would want to be seen being helped accross the road by a lolipop man when I was a bairn. Mind, it was the height of uncool to be given a lift to school by their parents but seeing overweight kids waddle out of their parents' people carriers is a common site now.
Logged
wheels
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 831


« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2012, 12:05:22 AM »

How true.  Nothing like seeing a few kids knocked down to teach them a sense of danger!!


Obviously that's not the idea, however, kids need to Learn how to deal with the road themselves. No kid over the age of 7 would want to be seen being helped accross the road by a lolipop man when I was a bairn. Mind, it was the height of uncool to be given a lift to school by their parents but seeing overweight kids waddle out of their parents' people carriers is a common site now.

You make a fair paoint about overweight children Duke. Going right back to where the thread started thats why communications such as Civic Review are so impoertant in helping to get the message re healthy eating out. Because if we dont spent that money on Council and other communitation you and I will be picking up the health bill for these inactive individuals in years to come.

In fact take Civic Review back to 6 issues I say and increase the PR budget for the Council I say.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Tweets by @marplewebsite
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!