Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think council shouldn't pay for lollypop lady outside private school?

160 replies

nestynest · 20/02/2012 16:13

is this not the council subsidising private education? Just annoys me to see all the massive 4 x 4s dropping pfbs and then there's a lollypop lady there laid on by the council? Shouldn't the school organise one themselves?

OP posts:
rogersmellyonthetelly · 20/02/2012 18:51

Just before Christmas a child was hit and killed outside my children's private school. I'm sure her parents would love to see you complaining about this when a lollipop lady would probably have saved her life. Yabu and clearly have a massive problem with children attending private schools.

MrsBovary · 20/02/2012 18:52

I don't think you've thought this one through.

Yabu.

diabolo · 20/02/2012 18:59

I can't quite believe this OP - what utter, nasty prejudice. What's the crap about pfb's?? Is that seriously what you think? Would you say that about children at a state school with a lollipop person? No, I doubt it!

If the school owned the road outside the school, I am sure they would pay for their own lollipop person, but as (presumably) it is a council owned highway.....council tax....... (do I actually need to say any more?)

YABU.

SecretMinceRinser · 20/02/2012 18:59

I think most people are being deliberately obtuse here. The OP hasn't said there shouldn't be a lollipop lady there, she also hasn't said that privately educated kids are less worthy of being kept safe on the roads. She is just suggesting that as the situation of the school is the cause of the hazard - to kids and drivers - that maybe the school should pay for the safety measures that need to be in place due to its existence.
Fwiw OP I think you have a point but it's not something I would get massively worked up over.

GretaGarble · 20/02/2012 19:05

I don't think people are being obtuse.

The OP wrote "is this not the council subsidising private education?" and refers to a "lollypop" lady "laid on by the council". It is normal for the council to operate school crossings where there is a need. To suggest that doing so outside a private school is "subsidising private education" is pretty thick.

hermionestranger · 20/02/2012 19:06

I'm sorry but what? The situation of the school is the problem.

The picante school I attended (for sixth form) had been there 500 years. Perhaps it should have shut down and moved so as. It to be a nuisance to traffic.

The state primary my son attends is 110years old. Shall we move that too?

The OP is being massively unreasonable!

GrahamTribe · 20/02/2012 19:07

It's so nice to learn that my DC are less deserving of public funded means to keep them safe when crossing the road than yours are, nesty. Hmm

NB I don't drive a 4 x 4 though DH does.

SoupDragon · 20/02/2012 19:08

SecretMinceRinser, I think it is you that is being obtuse. The OP said nothing of the sort.

SecretMinceRinser · 20/02/2012 19:08

And suggesting that the op was saying that it doesn't matter if posh kids get run over is being deliberately obtuse.

diabolo · 20/02/2012 19:08

I (for one) am not being deliberately obtuse. I do know how to read, thank you.

The OP says that the state is subsiding private education. How do you (or the OP) know the school doesn't pay?

fwiw I'm not sure how a lollipop person subsidises private education? Does the lollipop person give free lessons to children crossing the road perhaps???? Maybe a quick turn on a clarinet? Maybe a dance lesson as you dodge those cars and vans? Maybe a bit of Latin? "Prohibere. Periculum"

SecretMinceRinser · 20/02/2012 19:12

The op has said she thinks the school should pay for it so from that I read that she thinks that there should be a lollipop lady there. Why are so many people saying she thinks there shouldn't be?

GrahamTribe · 20/02/2012 19:14

I didn't, SecretMinceRinser. But I still think that she's talking garbage.

GrahamTribe · 20/02/2012 19:14

And bugger, I meant to add a Grin or perhaps a after that, Secret.

SecretMinceRinser · 20/02/2012 19:16

Well I assume that the op means that the money the school is saving by not paying for the crossing patrol themselves will be funding the kids education.
The crossing patrol is a necessary part of the school which is a private business - therefore the tax payer shouldn't be paying.

Charlotteperkins · 20/02/2012 19:17

You don't get lollipop people outside any of the private schools I know. I thought that this was normal. Confused

suburbophobe · 20/02/2012 19:19

Why not? Those parents pay their taxes too....

Never mind the employment of the Lollipop lady/man...

If not, you get an even bigger two-tier state in GB, it's bad enough already...Hmm

It's sad that lollypop people are needed at all, people driving cars seem to think they are more important than anyone else (i.e. leaving their engine running while parking and waiting outside school while on the school run, all the kids running out past the fumes belching out....).

MarshaBrady · 20/02/2012 19:20

I didn't know it was an option for private schools. Ours has been campaigning for better road safety - zig zag lines and signs. As for a lollipop lady we should be so lucky.

Forrestgump · 20/02/2012 19:25

We dont have a lollipop lady outside my eldests childrens private school, however there is a pedestrian crossing outside the school, as the pavement on both sides of the road is used by children walking to the local primary and secondary schools.

SecretMinceRinser · 20/02/2012 19:25

Yes and those parents have chosen to opt out of the education system that is provided free. They shouldn't then expect to dip into the communal pot for a crossing patrol for their kids school.
I'm pretty sure companies like Tesco have to contribute to any environmental issues that arise as a result of their stores. Why should private schools be any different?

suebfg · 20/02/2012 19:26

A crossing patrol is about children's safety, not their education.

SecretMinceRinser · 20/02/2012 19:28

And the 'I pay my taxes too' argument doesn't go down too well on here when it's people claiming benefits. But if you want the state to fund the lollipop man for you kids private school then that's obviously different Hmm

SecretMinceRinser · 20/02/2012 19:28

Who pays for a crossing patrol has nothing whatsoever to do with safety.

SoupDragon · 20/02/2012 19:29

The OP is purely posting to stir up trouble so it really doesn't matter.

GrahamTribe · 20/02/2012 19:30

It costs on average (last time I read up on it) £5K per year to state educate a child in the mainstream system. A PRU place in my county costs £18K per child. Some of the children who are in independent schools are there as an alternative to a PRU, not owing to misbehaviour and expulsion from a state school but because that is the only state provided alternative to a child who is self-excluded from state mainstream due to bullying.

Considering the savings made by the state for each child who attends an independent school the local authorities can surely afford to spend a very small percentage of the tax-paying parents of privately educated childrens' money on providing the means for those children to cross the road to get to their school in safety.

galletti · 20/02/2012 19:31

YAB SO U