BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[PurplePenguin]

I think you might have missed out the word "excessive".

What's excessive? For example, if someone is selling their home and downsizing, do they have a moral duty to recognise the massive tax free profit they are making, and sell their house for less to avoid an excessive profit?

 

[briantrumpet]

What's excessive? For example, if someone is selling their home and downsizing, do they have a moral duty to recognise the massive tax free profit they are making, and sell their house for less to avoid an excessive profit?

Your argument is with the NAO and the FT, given that it's their description.

 

[Pblakeney]

What's excessive? For example, if someone is selling their home and downsizing, do they have a moral duty to recognise the massive tax free profit they are making, and sell their house for less to avoid an excessive profit?

I guess that you are happy to be paying for these profits through your taxes?

 

[PurplePenguin]

I guess that you are happy to be paying for these profits through your taxes?

The amount I'm paying is some way down the list of my concerns. What about the poor kids? How, as a society, are we now taking kids without carers away from their friends/family/school and sending them miles away? And this is done, because it is somehow economically advantageous. The issue isn't that councils are paying too much, the issue is that they have completely failed to provide these services locally. It shouldn't need a charity to provider the services, it is something society should do.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Your argument is with the NAO and the FT, given that it's their description.

As per my comment above, my criticism is mostly aimed at the councils. Private companies will always look to maximise profits.

 

[Pblakeney]

The amount I'm paying is some way down the list of my concerns. What about the poor kids? How, as a society, are we now taking kids without carers away from their friends/family/school and sending them miles away? And this is done, because it is somehow economically advantageous. The issue isn't that councils are paying too much, the issue is that they have completely failed to provide these services locally. It shouldn't need a charity to provider the services, it is something society should do.

It is not an either/or. There is a failing on both the issues above.
I am struggling to see how the current situation is economically advantageous apart from to those deriving profits.

 

[First Aspect]

As per my comment above, my criticism is mostly aimed at the councils. Private companies will always look to maximise profits.

That's a bit too simple. Where the profits inflate because of a particular model (PE) that's worth some further scrutiny. PE is a destroyer of service and of some companies, and they make utterly dreadful employers. The up sides are limited to the people with wealth to invest in the first place. They are the opposite of trickle down economics.

 

[briantrumpet]

As per my comment above, my criticism is mostly aimed at the councils.

Do you think it's possible that they stopped doing this because of austerity and budget tightening, and were then told (in effect) to outsource it 'to save money'? A bit like the PPI stuff?? Surely if it were just mismanagement, some councils would have kept it in house and shown the rest how it could be done. But this seems to be national norm from which there's no obvious escape now, and we're being held to ransom. Even if it was by national-scale blundering by councils, we still seem to be being held to ransom, given the reported profit margins (and they are, I'm sure, after every trick in the book to reduce the headline rate). Call me cynical if you like.

They are the opposite of trickle down economics.

To be fair, 'trickle down economics' is the opposite of trickle down economics.

 

[C R]

Do you think it's possible that they stopped doing this because of austerity and budget tightening, and were then told (in effect) to outsource it 'to save money'? A bit like the PPI stuff?? Surely if it were just mismanagement, some councils would have kept it in house and shown the rest how it could be done. But this seems to be national norm from which there's no obvious escape now, and we're being held to ransom. Even if it was by national-scale blundering by councils, we still seem to be being held to ransom, given the reported profit margins (and they are, I'm sure, after every trick in the book to reduce the headline rate). Call me cynical if you like.



To be fair, 'trickle down economics' is the opposite of trickle-down economics.

See also academisation.

 

[briantrumpet]

See also academisation.

Maybe (and I'm sure it's part of the push), but I'm not sure it's worked to the same £ extent, as it's not got to the effective monopoly threshold (yet).

 

[PurplePenguin]

It is not an either/or. There is a failing on both the issues above.
I am struggling to see how the current situation is economically advantageous apart from to those deriving profits.

I'm assuming that the cost of paying the private sector to provide a home in Lancaster where they pretend to meet Ofsted's requirements is more than [20%] less than the cost of providing the same in London for an in house run solution. So with this model the council is happy because they save money and the private sector is happy because they make money. All very efficient except no one seems to consider the kids.

Of course, I'm the same as everyone else. I think more people should foster, but I don't do it, so it's obviously hypocritical to criticise anyone else for not doing it.

I don't have the solution.

 

[Pblakeney]

I'm assuming that the cost of paying the private sector to provide a home in Lancaster where they pretend to meet Ofsted's requirements is more than [20%] less than the cost of providing the same in London for an in house run solution. So with this model the council is happy because they save money and the private sector is happy because they make money. All very efficient except no one seems to consider the kids.

Of course, I'm the same as everyone else. I think more people should foster, but I don't do it, so it's obviously hypocritical to criticise anyone else for not doing it.

I don't have the solution.

That's all well and good, in theory.
It is the figures that are out of touch with reality. £384k/annum/child? That is simply crazy.

 

[First Aspect]

That's all well and good, in theory.
It is the figures that are out of touch with reality. £384k/annum/child? That is simply crazy.

The AI report BT posted was more or less the same as the FT article, which more or less tells me the source material is more or less the same (sorry to be all Tim Hartford about this).

But I still would like to know how this breaks down. I think it will include the costs to manage those placements in addition to the placements themselves, and so include a big chunk of local authority social work costs.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Quite right. No point trying to stop more children become rapists, addicts or whatever.

Luckily for you some people have more sense:

School talks by ex-offenders and youth justice services aim to deter young people from crime by sharing the real-life consequences of incarceration.

I doubt any of those ex offenders are rapists, which is what you suggested. Do you have any evidence rapists are going round schools talking to kids of the consequences of being rapists? It would be completely inappropriate.
I have no idea why you insist on telling us it's a good idea.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We used to get the police come to the school to talk about trespassing on the railways and to give us some scary real life stories.

To this day I still think the kid who got all those burns had it coming to them....

1970's public information films are terrifying. Donald Plesance as the spirit of dark and dangerous water. That one about climbing up pylons. I think there's one where a kid loses his legs. It's a wonder we ever left the house.