Sounds like an excellent idea to me. With necessary cuts to public expenditure, it may well be a case of closing the playground or introducing modest charges to help cover costs. £2.50 isn’t much more than the cost of an icecream. Perhaps concessions could be introduced for children eligible for school meals, but most parents – who benefit as much as the children – could easily afford this modest charge.

Most adventure playgrounds I’ve taken my kids to have charged, including those in council leisure centres.

I feel the need to point out that this isn’t just some play equipment in a park. This is a supervised area meaning the council has to employ trained staff exclusively to monitor it.

But of course labour closed so many of the dam playgrounds removing most of the pay areas, due to yes health and safety.

~Robert, Where do you get your information from? I have seen more playgrounds open then anytime before.

And for charging. Well it’s ridiculous. The council should pay for all kids to use them. The space for children to play in cities is very restrictive as it is so again this will become a scheme for the people how can pay endlessly to use the play areas for the children who’s parents will find it hard to keep paying.

This country is supposedly richer than it was 50 years ago yet it seems social justice was better then than it is now. The UK is going backwards but forwards for the wealthy only.

#4

Sorry, this is nonsense. There’s lots Labour can be criticised for in government, but closing playgrounds isn’t one of them – quite the reverse, as pathfinder money enabled many to stay open, many to be improved and many additional playgrounds to be funded, especially (yes, supervised) adventure playgrounds in mainly deprived areas. (Which would suggest parents in these areas are less likely to be able to pay £2.50 just for their kid to get some exercise and have some joy in their lives.)

FFS, will there be nowhere people can go for free before long?

Robert, I’m sorry, but that allegation is just absurd (even by the usual standards of right-wing ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ myths).

I had at least one young child throughout the 13 years Labour were in power (oldest was 3 in 1997, youngest was 9 in 2010) and I can’t think of a single playground that’s been closed down. I can, however, think of several playgrounds in my local area that have either built from scratch during that time or else transformed from shabby patches of tarmac with an old climbing frame and some broken swings in the middle into state-of-the-art facilities full of imaginative play equipment, basketball courts, skate ramps etc.

Of course, the playground-building program was one of the first things the coalition scrapped, along with the school-building program. And all, of course, in the name of ‘intergenerational fairness’ and ‘not making our children pay for our generation’s mistakes’.

@ Tim J

“Most adventure playgrounds I’ve taken my kids to have charged, including those in council leisure centres.”

Yeah. I think the real question is whether the council genuinely have no choice but to charge if they don’t want it shut down, or whether they’ve decided that richer residents shouldn’t bankroll poorer residents.

Whether or not they offer concessions should be a good indicator here.

@1 – a good idea indeed? – yes, having made the streets to dangerous to play in because they get in the way of our cars, lets start charging children before they are economically active, and then, when they hit 18, we can give the clever ones £27,000 of debt before they have even started, then there will be the houses they will never afford, a demographically imbalanced society that will have more retired baby boomers than people creating wealth in society – oh yes and an environment so shafted by the grandparents, that the economy will struggle further

Have you bothered to think about the small cost of adventure park maintenence against the cost of gathering charges and running a means tested cheap deal?

Have you bothered to think where else kids will play?

Of course, in your scheme of things, you have not suggest these cuts should come first: free TV licences for old people, free bus passes to old people, free heating bills to old people in cold weather, social care for the elderly, NHS services etc.

– only someone indifferent to the needs of our future generation can see charging for play as an “excellent idea”.

It is only “excellent” if you are trying to achieve social unrest.

(for the record, I am not suggesting cutting services only or mostly of benefit for old people as “excellent”)

– and these will be the same people that wanted to sell our Forests, but wanted to assure us that our access was not at risk?

@9 David

Have you bothered to think about the small cost of adventure park maintenence against the cost of gathering charges and running a means tested cheap deal?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the comment I made @3. This is a staffed playground therefore there will be no or minimal cost to collecting charges.

As for running means testing that’s an item that councils already run with consideration for eligibility for free school meals etc. Simply allow a family that’s eligible for one to be eligible for the other.

I’m not saying I’m in favour of this, but you’ve got to attack it with something more substantial.

@ 11. FlipC

– “minimal costs” is a bit simplistic. You are presuming the current work carried out by that person can be dropped and replaced with collecting cash. I doubt the park currently has cash handling facilities, nor will the staff be trained in cash handling procedures. Likewise, for auditing purposes, this will need more than 1 person to process, so you will need to increase the staff complement, current arrangements are unlikely to require this. Would the cashier be able to leave their cash booth to deal with a safety incident?

– You might argue that maintenence costs will decrease as fewer children use the site, but this will be reflected in other social costs, as the kids having nowhere to play, have to find their own fun. Some of that will be reflected to some extent by anti-social behaviour / petty crime, or later obesity problems. The individual effect on this is likely to be small, but as a wider policy, significant. I speculate that the social costs are likely to be in the order of magnitude as the income generated by the charging policy.

Actually my key concern was the ease with which this proposal was regarded as “excellent”. You might decide “sadly necessary”, but “excellent” carries enthusiasm, and thus sees play and adventure as an unnecessary service provision of a council.

Tell me, is providing space for children to play legally or morally optional?

In Cat Steven’s day, adults were more concerned about the quality of the environment kids played in, but it seems the current crop of adults, regard play as unnecessary.

You might argue that maintenence costs will decrease as fewer children use the site, but this will be reflected in other social costs, as the kids having nowhere to play, have to find their own fun.

How about the whole rest of Battersea Park? There’s no actual obligation for councils to provide expensive entertainment for free. Looking at the site, I’m surprised it’s free now – as I say, whenever I’ve taken my kids to adventure playgrounds I’ve had to pay. This isn’t three swings and a slide we’re talking about.

Pretty obviously ridiculous. Children should be able to have safe spaces to play and learn in, outside of school and the home. To that end they should not have to shell out for the privilege! Who even comes up with these ideas?!

@Soph
The Privileged. At a wild guess.

Don’t worry. They do this people like the ‘uk uncutters’ will simply help everyone jump over the fence and hang some nice banker shame posters around.

As a demonstration its quite all rather ‘simples’. Public spaces are ours, we will not be charged.

Tory family values at its best.

“Oh the children the poor children…… think of the children.”

Pay up or fuck off.

let the kids keep their playground free, its the poorer kids that always lose out

This is pretty sad. I remember playing there when I was a kid (and particularly going a bit too high and becoming frozen in fear, so my dad had to coax me down). It’s sad to think kids won’t be able to access it because charges are being introduced…

@12 David

You are presuming the current work carried out by that person can be dropped and replaced with collecting cash.

and you are presuming that it can’t. How many operators are there on fairground rides? What happens if something untoward happens there?

You might argue that maintenence costs will decrease as fewer children use the site,

Actually no I wouldn’t.

but “excellent” carries enthusiasm, and thus sees play and adventure as an unnecessary service provision of a council.

Which seeing as you haven’t made an cogent argument that play and adventure are a necessary service provision of a council “excellent” is a perfectly valid response.

Tell me, is providing space for children to play legally or morally optional?

Yes unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

It should probably be pointed out that the adventure playground is not free, but is charged to tax payers in Wandsworth at present. If they are not happy with the proposed change, they can always change the council to one that will reinstate the free adventure playground…

Such is democracy.

@12

Speaking as someone who has set up cash boxes on the doors of events on several occasions, all you need is a little cashbox by the entrance. Whilst there would no doubt be some costs involved in having someone staff it, if we assume that they earn minimum wage then at £2.50 per child you would only need a minimum of 3 children coming into play per hour to cover the cost.

GWP @ 22

Christ, man listen to yourself. £2.50 to play in a swing park? Has the World gone mad? All over the Country we are talking about levels of obesity reaching crisis levels and how kids cannot play anywhere else and now we want to charge kids £2.50 for playing!!!! Would we rather have them hanging about street corners or playing football on the streets, what about in the local shopping centres? Your Party are supposed to be a humanising influence on these gits, not encouraging them.

Honestly people, some of you people need to sit down with yourselves. Has everything got to costed and spreadsheeted to the nth degree and every inch of profit wrung out of every social activity? Really?

I think I can speak for the majority of people here but we find the vision of children playing on the swings as a source of joy, but there appears to two groups of people who see the same things as opportunity, namely paedophiles and Tories.

Look, I get that the average Tory is and ideological dickhead, I get that. Surely there must be the odd time that even with you want to support something, the idea of looking like a cunt would deter you? What? That never happens?

£2.50 to play on a swing park? Get a fucking life and stop being a being a pain in the arse of all the decent people who are left on the planet.

Shame on any reader of LC who has nothing to say on whether children have a need for play, and no view on the way adults make it difficult for children to play.

Shame especially on those who do have something to say but only irrelevent conclusions: e.g.”You can always vote them out next time” – as if a child can vote – or developing the cost argument (Councils and Fairgrounds have the same cost bases and risk exposure? – ludicrous)

– all these fallacious arguments and nothing about the big problem being exposed – how important does society think play is?

Judging from this and previous articles (play groups and cuts, Play England), I find Liberal Conspiracy posters have a collective blind spot on this subject area, and it does not bode well for Liberal thinking that such a significant number think the development and freedoms of our next generation are somehow marginal and expendable.

So let me get this straight –

Things we can afford:

– Letting the banking industry, who caused the recent economic upheaval, off scot-free, with a clean bill of health from none other than Chancellor Osborne.

– Not tightening up the regulations governing corporate tax avoidance.

– A tax cut for “small businesses” that million-pound corporations can neverthleless qualify for.

– Freezing Council Tax in some of London’s wealthiest boroughs.

Things we “can’t afford anymore”:

– Home care for the severely disabled

– Qualified senior nurses in NHS Outpatients (including cancer care)

and now

– Free playgrounds (the whole point of which was so that children from less well-off backgrounds would have somewhere safe to play – h/t to the incomparable Brian Cant)

I know most of the “huzzah”s in the comments come from our own pet Ayn Rand fetishist brigade who crossed their own Moral Event Horizons with gay abandon years ago, but come on people – priorities! What kind of world are we trying to build here?

@ 23 Jim

“£2.50 to play on a swing park?”

Not that I necessarily support this, but it’s not a swing park, it’s an adventure playground (you know, those big complexes with the monkey bars and that). When I was a kid, which isn’t all that long ago, you had to pay to get into those – or they came as part of a larger attraction that you had to pay to get into, like a safari park.

This isn’t a case of children being charged to enter the little playground in your local park, the whole swings, slide and roundabout thing. It’s something that it’s pretty rare to get for free in the first place. That doesn’t mean I think they’re right to start charging, but I think we should all keep a handle on what we’re talking about here.

[23] “Has the World gone mad” – my Dad believed the introduction of charges for water was the end of civilisation as he knew it – perhaps it was only a matter of time before some bright spark saw financial benefits in charging for the swings?

Chaise @ 26

Okay, a glorified swing park, then. At the end of the day we, as a Nation, are seeking to deny poorer children a safe place to play. We are comming to the summer holidays and kids will beout all day and we expect their parents work and now we are going to charge for the use of the only real ‘free’ activity these kids will get.

Why rob children of their childhood? Who gains from keeping kids from playing?

28. Jim – I am reassured that someone else sees the big issue, and is not bogged down in divisive squabbles about about whether the charge should be £2.50, or whether to get itinerant workers notorious for links to petty crime and poor safety standards should be the play provider

The definition of play is what you do when someone isn’t requiring you to do something else.

http://www.playengland.org.uk/

Anyone over the age of about 35 grew up in an environment where there were fewer constraints – it was regarded as safe for kids to play in the street. Now there are greater restrictions, and that makes those remaining spaces where kids can discover themselves even more precious.

That the debate has retracted from Cat Steven’s “Where do the children play” to “do the kids really need to play, its rather an expensive privelege” is a sad indictment on people who have clearly forgotten when they were happiest as kids.

@28 Actually Jim I’ve come to the conclusion that the Majority in this country are whinging bell-ends, who constantly need things to moan about. This is actually a cunning plan to have poor children gather on their street corners so peeps can moan about kids making the street unsafe and untidy next time their family visits.

How about charging the people who go out at night for the use of street lighting? A modest £2.50 per person should do it.

@30

I don’t even think they’re a majority – they’re a vocal minority who won’t be happy until everyone is as miserable as they are. Nevertheless there are enough of them to make an impact at the ballot box because the pursuit of inflicting as much misery as possible is sacrosanct to them and they’ve worked out how to do it.

Public policy as written by Enfield and Whitehouse’s “Old Gits”.

@ 28 Jim

“Okay, a glorified swing park, then. At the end of the day we, as a Nation, are seeking to deny poorer children a safe place to play. We are comming to the summer holidays and kids will beout all day and we expect their parents work and now we are going to charge for the use of the only real ‘free’ activity these kids will get.”

That’s really not true, Jim. It’s not “we, as a nation”, it’s a single council. And it’s a bit hyperbolic to claim that a single adventure playground is the only free activity available to kids.

“Why rob children of their childhood? Who gains from keeping kids from playing?”

Well, the obvious answer to the second question is “the taxpayer”. Don’t act as if this is being done out of malice. And as for robbing children of their childhood – this is what I’m talking about when I say we need to get a handle on what’s happening. Somebody starts charging for a playground, and suddenly you’re going on about the end of childhood. It’s like reading the Daily Mail.

I really think a lot of people on this thread are so desperate to bash the coalition – normally a worthy cause, I’d agree – that they’ve lost quite a bit of perspective.

@ 29 David Hodd

“Anyone over the age of about 35 grew up in an environment where there were fewer constraints – it was regarded as safe for kids to play in the street. Now there are greater restrictions, and that makes those remaining spaces where kids can discover themselves even more precious. ”

I’m well under the age of 35, and I was allowed to play in the street. Granted, I grew up in a village, but you’re acting as if there are dedicated “play zones”, outside of which children are only allowed to do chores and homework, and that Wandsworth council have just closed the only one in a five-mile radius.

“That the debate has retracted from Cat Steven’s “Where do the children play” to “do the kids really need to play, its rather an expensive privelege” is a sad indictment on people who have clearly forgotten when they were happiest as kids.”

FFS. Seriously, “charging for a single playground” is not the same thing as “only letting children play if they pay for it”. Do you guys even know what facilities there are in the local area? Is there a park or another, free playground ten minutes down the road?

Short-sighted – Wandsworth’s negligible gain will be outweighed by the additional cost of obesity and so-called anti-social behaviour from “kids hanging around”.

And didn’t this used to be called a stealth tax by those on the right between 1997-2010?

Not just a Nasty Tory but yet another Evil Tory to build firmer foundations for The Evil Tory Party !

Total Evil and nothing else, how the hell are they getting away with inflicting such evil thoughts and ideas is beyond comprehension.

chaise @ 32

Jim. It’s not “we, as a nation”, it’s a single council. And it’s a bit hyperbolic to claim that a single adventure playground is the only free activity available to kids.

It is a single council so far. You can rest assured that if this goes through, then lots of other things will be charged as well. The fact is, these cunts have been pushing back for thirty years to the extent that anything they want, they just throw the word ‘deficit’ into the sentence and you got justification for anything. Some of these things they have been looking to destroy for thirty years. The fact that entire Nation is not laughing these buggers out of the town hall means that they have won this debate.

Blupillnation @ 32

Public policy as written by Enfield and Whitehouse’s “Old Gits”.

LOL, I am afraid that this is the exact image I had when I made my first post on this subject. The traditional moaners, always looking out for something else to moan about, always looking for another bugbear. How the rest of us manage without seeing EVERYTHING as an excuse to complain I don’t know.

They always say you become the person you hate, so whenever I cannot look at a disabled parking bay without becoming completely enraged to the point of snorting anger, you know what? Just shoot me! Just take a crossbow to my head and put a bolt through my fucking brain, because when I become so petty as to deny kids a swing park, then I will have long since lost any humanity I have left.

Can one of the constant fucking moaners come on and explain the attraction to all of this? Who looks at a kid’s playpark and shakes with anger thinking ‘Urggh those kids on those monkey bars, that should be a fiver out of his pocket for him and his brother’.

I never get that bad, so what I am I missing? I can function at a reasonable level, I get through the day without that much anger. What is going to happen to me? I am I going to be lying on my death bed, sit bolt upright and scream ‘The slide, yes I understand! The slide, the bastards used a slide for free’.

Is it possible when you bastards are on your death bed all this anger at completely trivial things will seem rather pathetic?

As usual the tory trolls show us their family values clap trap is all about tax cuts for the rich.

@34

What is all this fuss about play?

Read chapter 4 of this report, it captures quite well the difficult circumstances of child’s play currently.

http://www.playengland.org.uk/resources/play,-naturally-a-review-of-children%27s-natural-play

Now it is clear that play is not relevent to you personally, so you will look at the cost benefits analysis of providing play facilties and notice the direct cost, but not the benefits and hidden costs.

Adventure playgrounds are not my field, but outdoor play is. In some respect the adventure playground is a Colonisation of play as referred in the document. Turning play into a commodity to pay for, when the freedoms previously enjoyed elsewhere are no longer available is terrible statement for society to make.

20. FlipC

You asked for a demonstration of why provision of play facilities is an essential provision.

I won’t attempt the moral side: Some things are self evident, but more significantly, I can give you the legal framework:

Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:

States Parties … recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts … shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational, and leisure activity.

UK are signatories to this convention.

http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/index.php?page=Who_We_Are

@ 37 Jim

“It is a single council so far. You can rest assured that if this goes through, then lots of other things will be charged as well.”

Why do you think this going through would affect other things? Like I said, it’s a single council. I don’t think every Tory counciller in the land is waiting with baited breath to see whether Wandsworth successfully starts charging for its adventure playground.

“The fact is, these cunts have been pushing back for thirty years to the extent that anything they want, they just throw the word ‘deficit’ into the sentence and you got justification for anything. Some of these things they have been looking to destroy for thirty years.”

True enough.

“The fact that entire Nation is not laughing these buggers out of the town hall means that they have won this debate.”

Again, you’re attaching far, far too much weight to a very minor event (and please don’t respond saying how it’s not a minor event for the local families, I mean on the nation scale). There are two legitimate reasons that the nation isn’t attacking the Tories for this.

1) It’s a bit of a luxury service. Most places don’t have free adventure playgrounds. I can’t think of anywhere in my childhood that had to employ paid staff but that I could go to for free (except places where they let kids in free but charged the adults). There’s a swings ‘n’ roundabout park in most neighbourhoods in this country, and I doubt this one is any different. It wouldn’t be the first thing that I’d cut, but I reckon people are going to think: “Well, it was nice while it lasted, but we have to make savings, and most places never had a free adventure playground in the first place.”

[Please take all of the above in, don’t just jump on the bit about savings.]

2) It’s not a national issue. Most people won’t have heard about it; in fact, I bet you ten shiny pennies that most people who live within the council’s jurisdiction haven’t heard about it. That doesn’t mean that other people shouldn’t comment, but it does mean that’s it’s hardly surprising that the nation isn’t in uproar.

If you find this event objectionable, that’s cool. But I’d say a couple of things. Firstly, make sure you know all the facts – have they really got rid of the only place children can play within, say, walking distance, or are there other play areas nearby? Secondly, don’t act as if it’s roughly on par with events like the cuts to disability benefits. Acting as if something like this is a world-changing event just makes those opposed to it look silly.

@ 39 David

“Read chapter 4 of this report, it captures quite well the difficult circumstances of child’s play currently.”

That’s quite a lot of stuff, a lot of it apparently about obvious stuff like risk aversion and the fact that it’s harder to let your kids run around wherever they like when you live in a big town near a main road etc. Also, it’s obviously written by someone with an agenda. Any chance that you could just state the points that are relevant here?

“Now it is clear that play is not relevent to you personally, so you will look at the cost benefits analysis of providing play facilties and notice the direct cost, but not the benefits and hidden costs.”

That’s a trifle patronising, to be honest. The fact that I don’t use a service myself doesn’t mean I’m indifferent about whether the service should be provided. Nor does it make me an idiot.

“Adventure playgrounds are not my field, but outdoor play is. In some respect the adventure playground is a Colonisation of play as referred in the document. Turning play into a commodity to pay for, when the freedoms previously enjoyed elsewhere are no longer available is terrible statement for society to make.”

Sure, if that’s actually what’s happening. But charging for a single facility is not the same as “turning play into a commodity”. Another place kids can play is a leisure centre, but we’re used to paying for those.

I’ve already asked you whether you actually know what other facilities are available in that location, and you haven’t answered. If you don’t know, your claims about children being deprived of play seem pretty premature.

Chaise

“It’s not a national issue”

– a bit like Allotment holders and threats to commoners rights are only ever a local issue. Only a fool dismisses an issue as unimportant because it’s impact is only local, and affecting unimortant people.

Perhaps you should read this (its briefer than the last):
http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/pdf/1284227742.pdf

I think you need to be a bit more informed on the subject matter before you role out your cost saving plan again. As I have said before, your Cost Benefit has worked out the Direct cost, has nothing to say on hidden costs, and nothing on benefits.

“Play is a luxury”. What a memorable childhood you must have had!

Chaise

“Also, it’s obviously written by someone with an agenda. ”

Show me someone without one!

– bit confused here – did you mean the UN Convention on the Child has an agenda, or the government agency charged with having an agenda on play, Play England, has an agenda?

– I am afraid I can’t yet be bothered to dig out or prepare an analysis for you of the old play strategy for Wandsworth (who thus have an agenda), but that does not make my reasoning premature: I have repeatedly made the point that play is of great significance for the development of children, and you have consistently failed to engage on this “luxury” matter. Until we have reached agreement on the significance of play, and the need to take Article 31 seriously, then our discussions will always be restricted to details which can then have no broader meaning.

I have tried to explain the significance of play, and why this story is bigger than the details I am sorry I have not taken you any further.

Letter from Trevor Huddleston to the times on play provision in London in 1972. The view that play provision is a luxury has long been a problem…

http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/pdf/1284227742.pdf

Letter to the Times from Trevor Huddleston in 1972, on the importance of adequate play provision. The view that play is somehow “luxury” is the heart of this problem.

http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/pdf/1284227742.pdf

“Wandsworth’s Conservative Council has proposed to pilot a weekend fee of £2.50 per child at Battersea Park adventure playground.”

absurd

@40 David

You asked for a demonstration of why provision of play facilities is an essential provision.

To juggle the phrase we get – States Parties shall respect […] equal opportunities for […] recreational and leisure activity.

Therefore it could be argued that by charging for such a public facility they are breaching Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Congratulations you now have the beginnings of a legal framework with which to attack this decision beyond ‘it ain’t right’.

@ 43 David Hodd

“– bit confused here – did you mean the UN Convention on the Child has an agenda, or the government agency charged with having an agenda on play, Play England, has an agenda?”

The latter. And, as you say yourself, it does.

“I am afraid I can’t yet be bothered to dig out or prepare an analysis for you of the old play strategy for Wandsworth (who thus have an agenda)”

I don’t need an analysis, I was just asking if you know what other facilities are nearby. Obviously, you don’t. And you don’t need an agenda to say whether or not there’s a park nearby.

” but that does not make my reasoning premature: I have repeatedly made the point that play is of great significance for the development of children, and you have consistently failed to engage on this “luxury” matter. Until we have reached agreement on the significance of play, and the need to take Article 31 seriously, then our discussions will always be restricted to details which can then have no broader meaning.”

We’re not at a disagreement there. I don’t deny that it’s greatly significant… and why are you suddenly calling it a luxury? (Wait, let me guess: I said a free adventure playground is a luxury, so you’re going to pretend I said all play was a luxury, right?) Anyway, whether or not it’s significant is not why your reasoning is premature. Your reasoning is premature because you don’t actually know what other local facilities are available.

“I have tried to explain the significance of play, and why this story is bigger than the details I am sorry I have not taken you any further.”

Sigh…

1) You don’t need to explain the significance of play, because nobody on this thread disagrees with you about it.

2) You have not even attempted to explain why the story is bigger than “the details” (whatever that means).

They don’t “wants to charge kids to play”. There are plenty of spaces without supervision and equipment where kids can play for free. This is like saying Odeon Cinemas want to charge people to sit in the dark.

Short-sighted – Wandsworth’s negligible gain will be outweighed by the additional cost of obesity and so-called anti-social behaviour from “kids hanging around”.

That’s the whole point – cause the problem then bemoan it later on as if it had nothing to do with you.

Tories are very good at it, they’ve had practice.

Oh for god sake just in my area Labour removed the swings the play equipment and then decided the football post were a safety accident waiting to happen, just a few dozen yards away from me another school playing field has gone sold off four years ago to a housing development, you should remove your nose from Blair’s ass and smell the real world of new Labour.

@ 47

Finally, someone else who can tell the difference between mountains and molehills!

I don’t need an analysis, I was just asking if you know what other facilities are nearby. Obviously, you don’t. And you don’t need an agenda to say whether or not there’s a park nearby.

It’s in the middle of Battersea sodding Park. Kids who want to run around, play football, frisbee, cricket, or whatever the hell else they like can do it, for free, in the park. There really isn’t a UN right to free supervised adventure playgrounds. Chaise had it right above, this place really is turning into the Daily Mail.

@51 Tim

There really isn’t a UN right to free supervised adventure playgrounds

Correct, however in this instance they’re a public body removing the ability for some children to use it. How does that square with respecting equal opportunities?

@ 51 Tim J

“this place really is turning into the Daily Mail.”

Fun game you can play with that: take a LC headline and replace the name of the antagonist (the Tories, Clegg, whoever) with “the EU”, “Gordon Brown” or “Health and Safety Nazis”.

If I saw the headline “The EU Wants To Charge Kids To Play” in the Mail, I wouldn’t batter an eyelid.

@ FlipC

“How does that square with respecting equal opportunities?”

Equal opportunities does not mean you can do whatever you like regardless of whether or not you can afford it. Otherwise I could order a £1,000 bottle of champagne in a restaurant, then pay with a fiver while claiming “equal opportunities!”

Access to specific leisure facilities is not a human right.

@54 Chaise

However children do have a right to play and State parties have to respect equal opportunities for such activities. That means they can’t section of part of a playground for rich kids only.

However children do have a right to play and State parties have to respect equal opportunities for such activities.

Does anyone on this sodding thread have any children? Have they ever taken them to a *free* adventure playground? I’ve been to a variety of council leisure centres, and council soft-play areas, and council swimming pools and I’ve had to pay for all of them.

Unsupervised areas with swings, slides and climbing frames is a different matter, and they’re all over the place. But that’s not what’s being discussed here. The idea that it’s somehow illegal or immoral for councils to charge for services provided is simply bizarre.

@56 Tim

Actually I asked David to provide something beyond the ‘it be wrong’ argument.

The key word of Article 13 in this instance is “respect”. The case here isn’t that the council have set up a pay-for adventure playground but they are removing the ability for some to use it.

@ 55 FlipC

“However children do have a right to play and State parties have to respect equal opportunities for such activities. That means they can’t section of part of a playground for rich kids only.”

Well, given that many councils do charge for leisure services, I suspect you’re misinterpreting the law (and saying they’ve removed it doesn’t make much sense, unless you think setting up a services should mean you are forced to maintain it for all time). In any case, the law hasn’t got anything to say about the rights and wrongs here.

The case here isn’t that the council have set up a pay-for adventure playground but they are removing the ability for some to use it.

The idea that introducing entry charges for council facilities is in breach of the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child is marvellously absurd.

@ 59

“The idea that introducing entry charges for council facilities is in breach of the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child is marvellously absurd.”

Not to mention that it apparently signals the end of childhood and will result in Britain being pulled into the sea.

@58 Chaise Well, given that many councils do charge for leisure services, I suspect you’re misinterpreting the law Or that this interpretation has never been pointed and tested in a court or that said services are in fact contracted out to private companies who wouldn’t be covered by this.

From this logic dictates that if a public body itself provides play services it has to do with “equal opportunity”. Being available only to those who can afford it would seem to contradict this.

Unbelievable. It’s just to test if the cost affects usage.

Um, why is this unbelievable? If usage is unaffected, then it clearly isn’t a service that needs to be free to ensure that it’s used.

@ 61 FlipC

“From this logic dictates that if a public body itself provides play services it has to do with “equal opportunity”. Being available only to those who can afford it would seem to contradict this.”

There’s a limit to this sort of thing. Otherwise a child could complain that they did not have equal opportunities because the park was 100 yards from their house – and it was less than 50 yards from someone else’s! Also, I’m not sure “equal opportunities” refers to equality between income groups when used in law.

Realistically, I imagine that you might be able to invoke this law if the only play area in the entire area was limited to those who could pay. However, I assume this isn’t the case (if only because you, Jim and David are staying so quiet on that issue).

@63 Chaise

There’s a limit to this sort of thing.

I agree that’s why I specifically pointed out (@52, 53, 57) that this was a removal of services, but only for one specific group – those who can’t afford it.

To answer your question this is Battersea Park, of course it can be played in. However the Adventure Playground is the only specifically created site for children to play in.

So to recap. The council build a play area for children; allow all to use it; then decide that only those that can afford to can continue.

As I said hardly showing respect for equal opportunity play.

Why the surprise? Wandsworth Tories introduced paying for November fireworks, the Childrens Zoo in Battersea Park and The Wandsworth Museum. Also the cuts in services always target poor areas Library and primary school in East Battersea
Closure of a public park in Thessaly Road which was built by and for local children and parents (an example of the Big Society in action). Elm Farm off Battersea Park Road.

@ 64 Flip C

To answer your question this is Battersea Park, of course it can be played in. However the Adventure Playground is the only specifically created site for children to play in.

No it isn’t. Right next to the Adventure Playground there is a conventional playground (though one of the most modern and best equipped in the area) with swings, slides, climbing frames, roundabouts etc. which will continue to be free.

The Adventure Playground is a pretty unusual amenity. Most councils don’t provide this sort of thing at all – it’s more like the facilities you get (and pay for) at theme parks etc.

@ 64 FlipC

“I agree that’s why I specifically pointed out (@52, 53, 57) that this was a removal of services, but only for one specific group – those who can’t afford it.”

I still think it’s illogical to complain that the services are being removed when most people wouldn’t have access to them in the first place. Yes, now it’s only open to those than can afford it, but that’s the case everywhere else, when you would have to pay to go to an adventure playground anyway (if there even was one nearby).

What’s happened is that Wandsworth has stopped being unusually generous and has instead reverted to something like the norm. So what’s the difference?

“To answer your question this is Battersea Park, of course it can be played in. However the Adventure Playground is the only specifically created site for children to play in.”

The reasons for its creation seem by-the-by to me. There are other places where kids can play, so they’re not being deprived of anything.

“So to recap. The council build a play area for children; allow all to use it; then decide that only those that can afford to can continue.

As I said hardly showing respect for equal opportunity play.”

OK, but this equal opportunity thing is only relevant to this law, which I suspect won’t fly in this case.

Another example of Tory exclusion – what a poisonous lot – who else, (other than bankers) would have come up with such a mean-minded scheme to raise money? They should never be forgiven for this unspeakable wheeze – nor be allowed to forget it.

However – it’s no good just bleating about it – positive action is needed. When these charges to ‘play on the municipal grass’ are brought in – Batterseans and all free thinking folk should organise mass trespasses every weekend. What’s a park keeper with a collection box going to do -call the police? Who’s going to pay for their overtime?

Take a leaf out of Benny Rothman & Co’s Kinder Trespass book – it’s how we (the common people) got the National Parks and a belated apology out of the be-tweeded grouse murderers for denying access to the countryside for ordinary folk – for so many years.

How far are we prepared to allow the Tories to turn back the clock? Let them get away with this – unchallenged – and it’ll be the return of the workhouses next.

We can go all around the houses with this and examine every nook and cranny, but the bottom line is never going to change. The dysfunctional Tory is painting every ideological cut as a necessary response to a deficit, clearly this type of thing goes to the core beliefs of the vermin. Charging children to play on a swing park is what these misanthropes would do irrespective of the council’s position. They are kite flying here to see if the instincts of the Party have permeated throughout the rest of decent society.

Had the council where I lived even announced this on April the first, bet the majority of people would have been up in arms about it. I cafind the marketisation of kids totally repugnant. I am not in the least bit suprised that the Tories are attempting to ring out a couple quids from kids. We don’t despise children though, not as much as we despise the sub human Tories, at least.

Had the council where I lived even announced this on April the first, bet the majority of people would have been up in arms about it. I cafind the marketisation of kids totally repugnant.

Does your council charge kids to swim?
Or to take DVD’s from the public library?

My (Labour) council does both.

@ 69 Jim

“Charging children to play on a swing park is what these misanthropes would do irrespective of the council’s position”

Can you point to an example of this happening? Because, as has been said about three million times now, the facility in question is NOT a swing park.

I’m not sure whether your view of the Tories as subhuman is a result of your hazy grip on reality, or whether your desire to paint them as monsters is what causes you to have said hazy grip on reality in the first place.

To all those stating ‘But my council charges for this’ that’s because:

a) It was always a pay-for-use situation; or
b) The council have contracted the running of the facility to a third party.

Once again I’ll highlight the word “respect” in that UN Article and the fact the status of the park has changed. The Battersea park was equal opportunity now it’s not.

If the council had decided it was now only going to be available to White children, or Black children; Christians, or Muslims we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But to change it to only allow those who can afford in – that’s perfectly fine?

@ 74 Flip C

“Once again I’ll highlight the word “respect” in that UN Article and the fact the status of the park has changed. The Battersea park was equal opportunity now it’s not.”

Look, if you really think that this decision is illegal, take it up with the courts. It’s the only way to be sure, and legality has no bearing on morality anyway. There’s no point us bickering over the interpretation of a law.

“If the council had decided it was now only going to be available to White children, or Black children; Christians, or Muslims we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But to change it to only allow those who can afford in – that’s perfectly fine?”

Do you believe we should do away with money entirely? If so, you should make that clear. If not, you have to accept that capitalism means some people can afford things other people can’t. Assuming you don’t reject capitalism, you can’t declare something wrong purely on the basis that you have to pay for it.

Instead, the question becomes: “What should we, as a society, provide for free for the good of the people?” So you need to explain why the adventure playground is one of those things that ought to be free. Given that it’s in the middle of a park that contains other, free play facilities, I’m really not convinced.

@75 Chaise

Do you believe we should do away with money entirely?

My point was that if they’d made a change of any other type we wouldn’t be having this discussion, but because they’ve made it monetary that’s somehow alright?

Instead, the question becomes: “What should we, as a society, provide for free for the good of the people?”

Except in this case ‘we’ the people have already paid for this to be built and now ‘we’ the people are expected to pay to use it when previously it was available for free.

The stupid thing is that given a Conservative outlook a third party should have been contracted in to take on the full running and maintenance of the area with any levied fees having to be ratified by the council. The council no longer has to pay for it yet still retains ownership and a level of decision making.

Flip C @ 76

The proposal is for charges to be levied at weekends only. Those who cannot afford the charges can still use the facility Mon-Fri.

‘we’ the people have already paid for this to be built and now ‘we’ the people are expected to pay to use it

Wandsworth residents paid for it. But I’d estimate about a third of those using it are Lambeth or Chelsea residents. At weekends, probably more than that.

@ 76 FlipC

“My point was that if they’d made a change of any other type we wouldn’t be having this discussion, but because they’ve made it monetary that’s somehow alright?”

You’re not answering the question. Do you or do you not believe that it’s immoral that some people can afford things other people can’t? Most people would draw a moral distinction between, say, a nightclub not letting people in because they can’t afford the price on the door, and a nightclub not letting people in because they’re black. If you’re not one of those people, you should make that clear, because it’s fundamental to the point here. If you are one of those people, your “we’d object if it was racist” point is a bad analogy.

“Except in this case ‘we’ the people have already paid for this to be built and now ‘we’ the people are expected to pay to use it when previously it was available for free.”

Good point.

“The stupid thing is that given a Conservative outlook a third party should have been contracted in to take on the full running and maintenance of the area with any levied fees having to be ratified by the council. The council no longer has to pay for it yet still retains ownership and a level of decision making.”

I presume that would either make the park less profitable to the council, or lead to it being made less affordable for residents, simply on the basis that the third party will want their cut.

@ 77 Flowerpower

“The proposal is for charges to be levied at weekends only. Those who cannot afford the charges can still use the facility Mon-Fri.”

I have to say that this sounds more reasonable with every new bit of information. They’re charging children to play! Well, they’re charging people to use a park. OK, it’s a staffed adventure playground which is in the middle of the park, which remains free. Come to think of it, they’re only charging on two days a week…

“Wandsworth residents paid for it. But I’d estimate about a third of those using it are Lambeth or Chelsea residents. At weekends, probably more than that.”

Meh. You can’t exactly stop people from other districts using your infrastructure, and I’m sure Wandsworth residents walk on roads whose streetlights they didn’t pay for. Plus there’s a chance that these outsiders will do some shopping while they’re there and boost the local economy.

In any case, if the council were just trying to avoid freeloading, they could issue free passes to residents, the way they do for some car parks. While I agree that the reaction to this has got rather overblown, I think FlipC’s point about being charged for a service you paid for is a good one.

“Except in this case ‘we’ the people have already paid for this to be built and now ‘we’ the people are expected to pay to use it when previously it was available for free.”

Good point.

But it has to be paid for one way or another – what is meant by “free” is that it was previously “free-at-point-of-use”.

@78 Chaise

You’re not answering the question.

No I just see it as irrelevant. A nightclub is a private organisation designed to make a profit; a council isn’t.

That’s why I used that analogy. A council legally can’t discriminate because of skin colour or religion, but it can do so fiscally? In this particular instance within that UN Article it appears it shouldn’t be able to.

UKL @ 80

But it has to be paid for one way or another – what is meant by “free” is that it was previously “free-at-point-of-use”.

Yes, but what is the big deal, here. We all benefit if the local kids get to play somewhere safe, even if we never use it ourselves or indeed don’t even have kids. We all get ulitity from a swing park because it enhances our community and if people from the next community along use it, so what? I really mean it, so fucking what? It is just a swing park.

Flower power @ 77

Does it really matter whether or not the kids using it at the weekend can or cannot afford to pay for it? I admit it is a consideration, but surely the real question is should they be expected to pay for something we are all getting a benefit from? Given that the roads are safer if kids are playing away from roads, is it possible that your insurance premiums will not rise as a result of the Nations play areas? Does it not make diabietes less of a problem, long term if we have children playing out?

The real issue for me is do we really find the concept of society so repugnant that we are not even able to see the public good in providing play areas?

This is the reason I despise the Tory Party, so many of their followers are just so negative about EVERY minor aspect of life.

@ 80 ukliberty

“But it has to be paid for one way or another – what is meant by “free” is that it was previously “free-at-point-of-use”.”

Of course – but the point is that something that came out of taxpayer money is now being effectively denied to the poorest residents. So far that’s the most solid objection to this development that I’ve heard.

@ 81 FlipC

“No I just see it as irrelevant. A nightclub is a private organisation designed to make a profit; a council isn’t.”

Um, that was the analogy, not the question. If you refuse to discuss things that might invalidate your point then talking to you is a complete waste of time.

@ 82 Jim

“Does it really matter whether or not the kids using it at the weekend can or cannot afford to pay for it? I admit it is a consideration, but surely the real question is should they be expected to pay for something we are all getting a benefit from? Given that the roads are safer if kids are playing away from roads, is it possible that your insurance premiums will not rise as a result of the Nations play areas? Does it not make diabietes less of a problem, long term if we have children playing out?”

All of those things will be dealt with by the existing park and play area, which WILL REMAIN FREE.

“The real issue for me is do we really find the concept of society so repugnant that we are not even able to see the public good in providing play areas?”

I doubt it. Can you point to an example of a local government refusing to provide play areas? Because it’s certainly not relevant to this story.

“This is the reason I despise the Tory Party, so many of their followers are just so negative about EVERY minor aspect of life.”

More accurately, you make up lies about the Tories and then use those lies to justify your hatred. You’re so dishonest about this that you’ve actually made me defend the Conservatives.

@84 Chaise

I’ll expand that answer then.

You’re not answering the question. Do you or do you not believe that it’s immoral that some people can afford things other people can’t?

That is do I find it immoral that Person A can afford to visit a nightclub whereas Person B can’t. The flipside to that is – Do I find it immoral that a nightclub can set prices that exclude Person B?

To which the answer is irrelevant because we’re not dealing with morality here; hence my original @59

I asked David to provide something beyond the ‘it be wrong’ argument.

However it would be legally wrong for the nightclub to exclude on grounds of race etc. just as it would be for a public body such as a council. If it were legally wrong for a nightclub to exclude in terms of price that may invalidate its existence as the sole purpose of this private business is to make a profit. To charge a price that all could afford may not meet operational costs and thus close it down.

However a council is not a private business; its purpose is not to make a profit. That does not stop it from doing so unless it is bound legally not to discriminate in specific circumstances.

In this instance Article 18 states that signatory members must respect equal opportunities for play. Is the council doing this?

@ 86 FlipC

As i said before, the only way to find out whether this is covered by law is to test it. Your interpretation of the article seems reasonable enough to me in terms of the way that it’s phrased, but if the relevant court decides it doesn’t apply, then it doesn’t apply.

My own feeling on the matter is that the article would not, in practice, cover this, although I do think it’s poorly phrased if that’s the case.

I’m surprised that you say we’re not talking about morality here: as far as I’m concerned this is at least partly a moral issue, and it’s that moral issue that makes it worth arguing. In other words: if it’s not a moral issue, then why do you care what the law says? When you asked David to go beyond “it be wrong”, I thought you were asking him to explain WHY it was wrong instead of just making a knee-jerk statement about a complex issue.

FlipC,

In this instance Article 18 states that signatory members must respect equal opportunities for play. Is the council doing this?

Article 18 of what?

@87 Chaise

I pressed because as we’ve seen morals are subjective. Start down that road with a political body and it turns into a game of “I’m right, you’re wrong!” “No I’m right and you’re wrong!” which only the side with the majority or the biggest megaphone wins.

Throw a rational, preferably legal, argument into the mix and the game changes. As you say it becomes a court’s decision as to who’s right and wrong. Argue before that happens in a manner that indicates a possibility that the council may lose and they’ll take the moral get-out to make themselves look all warm, fuzzy, and caring.

@88 Sorry Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; where the heck did I get 18 come from :-S Bibble!

Just because we are signed up to a UN declaration does not make it legally enforcable – that requires parlimentary approval, so there would be a specific act.

“The UK ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on 16 December 1991. That means the UK government now has to make sure that every child has all the rights outlined in the treaty except in those areas where the government has entered a specific reservation.” Source

I agree it’s not yet enshrined in UK law (yet) and they’re vague here as where they’ve “entered a specific reservation”.

@ 89 FlipC

Oh, legal arguments are great tactically, don’t get me wrong. I’m just more interested in the moral side because we’ve got a debate going about whether or not it was right of the council to do this.

This is typical Tories, if you charge you will keep the oiks out so the snobby ‘ aspirational types ‘ of Battersea can play in a socially segragated neighbourhood. I mean how much is this going to raise- not much

This is typical Tories, if you charge you will keep the oiks out so the snobby ‘ aspirational types ‘ of Battersea can play in a socially segragated neighbourhood. I mean how much is this going to raise- not much

Of course, an interesting and hitherto unasked question is whether the fees cover the costs of the facilities and staff at weekends, or whether the council is still providing subsidy?

Chaise @ 85

More accurately, you make up lies about the Tories and then use those lies to justify your hatred.

I wish they are lies, really I wish it was.

I am genuinely an easygoing person. Really, I am not a hateful person. Hate is such a destructive force in this World and such a terrible waste of energy as well. I wish I could believe that many of these people were simply ‘wrong’ about so much stuff. I could get that and would have to accept that we could agree to disagree on lot things. However, by the arse end of the Blair years, I felt the same way about New Labour, simply because New Labour were really doing things, I could only describe as evil. I wish that the worse excesses of the Tory Party could be dismissed as just naïve. I rarely agree with the Tories on anything and lots of things that I disagree with is purely ideological. That, I can get, but on too many issues I see that they are driven by a force that I find difficult to describe as anything other than evil.

I can disagree with New Labour on things, I can disagree the Lib Dems and even the SNP on policy, but there are times when I disagree with them because they seem intent on going out of their way to destroy lives and make people’s a misery.

I have to say, that when it comes to the petty vindictiveness that politicians come up with, the Tories win hands down.

I am not sure that this policy comes under ‘evil’ category, but it will score highly in the vindictiveness scale.

You’re so dishonest about this that you’ve actually made me defend the Conservatives.

Yeah, try and not strain yourself.

A damn shame, i used to play in that park when i was a kid, great place where a lot of kids from the estates would go along with us more middle classy types, a shame these sort of merging pots are being segregated for loose change, after all, what sensible mother from the estate is going to waste her money letting her kids go somewhere to play when there are plenty of other parks around.

That is ultimately the sadness of these sort of activities, it divides class all the more and that only helps to weaken social cohesion.

A damn damn shame.

@ 96 Jim

“I wish they are lies, really I wish it was.”

They are lies. One Tory council has decided to charge, on weekends only, for an adventure playground that wouldn’t be available for free in most places anyway. You’ve decided to use that to claim that Tories in general don’t care about whether kids have the opportunity to play. That is a lie.

You’re also acting as if this means the local kids have nowhere else to go, and therefore will fall prey to obesity and so forth. Another obvious lie: the playground is inside a public park, which is free to access (this remains true despite you ignoring it as it fails to fuel your hatred).

“I am genuinely an easygoing person. Really, I am not a hateful person. Hate is such a destructive force in this World and such a terrible waste of energy as well.”

I don’t pretend to know what you’re like offline. I know that I’m a lot less polite on here than I would be at work or down the pub. Anonymity tends to dehumanise to an extent.

However, online you are an extremely hateful person. You’re incapable of discussing things rationally, instead you make things up so you can post comment after comment designed to demonise the “sub human” Tories. How can you dismiss millions of people as “sub human” and then claim to be an easygoing, non-hateful person?

“I have to say, that when it comes to the petty vindictiveness that politicians come up with, the Tories win hands down.”

Here I happen to agree, among the three main parties at least. But, with that being the case, perhaps you should criticise the things they actually do, not things you’ve made up.

“Yeah, try and not strain yourself.”

I’m not 100% sure what that means. Possibly it’s just an empty comment. Quite likely you’re implying that, as I don’t see Tories as “sub human”, I must be a Tory myself. I’m not too bothered either way. I’m not a Tory, but it’s hard not to defend them when someone insists on presenting them as monsters.

Chaise @ 99

I am not a Politically Correct person. I do not really put gloss or a neat spin on things. I find that the Tories produce the vilest views of any the main political Parties. I cannot think of more suitable terms than ‘scum’ or even ‘sub human’ for the type of people who regularly hold the unemployed and the disabled in complete contempt. They appear to be driven by a desire to attack those among us who can least defend themselves. I cannot believe that is merely because they have misjudged the odd issue. I cannot simply accept as a group they have all independently researched the science behind Climate Change and all have completely miss-interoperated the science that they found. The Tories have a habit of always and without exception, come up with the most wicked, despicable standpoints; that cannot dismissed a co-incidence.

I find that the BNP for example hold ‘vile’ views to. Do you think the BNP are ‘merely misguided’ or do you think that people who think that all gays are paedophiles and all Muslims are murderers are fundamentally ‘bad’?

If someone does or says evil things, at what point does it stop being a bad habit and we examine the make-up of the person responsible?

I have noticed that you appear to defend the Tories on here quite more and more often.

Here is a summery of the position regarding this ‘amusement park’.

The park was built.
The park was free to use.
The Tories now want to charge for using it.

Where is the lie?

FlipC,

“The UK ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on 16 December 1991. That means the UK government now has to make sure that every child has all the rights outlined in the treaty except in those areas where the government has entered a specific reservation.” Source

I agree it’s not yet enshrined in UK law (yet) and they’re vague here as where they’ve “entered a specific reservation”.

ISTM Article 31 is so widely drawn as to be practically non-justiciable even if it was so incorporated.

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.

2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

It’s an aspirational or normative document, not a prescriptive(?) document.

Sorry but I think you are on a non-starter there.

@ 99 Jim

“I am not a Politically Correct person [etc]”

Fine. But don’t pretend that you’re lovely really, not when you’re using fascist little terms like “sub human” to describe other people. And don’t be surprised when the more sensible people among us point out that you’re overreacting.

” If someone does or says evil things, at what point does it stop being a bad habit and we examine the make-up of the person responsible?”

Difficult to call, that one, but I think the line is slightly higher than “when they decide to charge for one of several leisure facilities locally available on two days of the week”. And people definitely aren’t accountable for the actions of everyone who votes the same way as them, as you seem to believe with your sweeping statements.

“I have noticed that you appear to defend the Tories on here quite more and more often.”

Dun-dun-DUUUUUN!

Look, I disagree with most Tory policy, but I prefer to address what the Tories actually say and do, rather than using your tactic of making things up. What I really can’t stand is people who use lies and bad arguments so they can straw-man their opponents. If you can’t defend your position without resorting to that sort of bullshit, maybe your position has problems.

Basically, I end up defending the Tories because people like you make ridiculous and even offensive statements about them. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re the sort of guy who likes using false dichotomies, but let me make this clear: the fact that I consider the Tories to be human beings does not mean I am in league with them.

“Here is a summery of the position regarding this ‘amusement park’.

The park was built.
The park was free to use.
The Tories now want to charge for using it.

Where is the lie?”

Wow, gosh, all of that is true! Oh wait, it’s because you’ve left out all the lies in your previous posts when making your little summary above. Given that I and everyone else can in fact just scroll up and read your previous posts, I’m afraid that’s not a very good trick!

Choosing more or less at random, here are some of your lies, from post 28:

“now we are going to charge for the use of the only real ‘free’ activity these kids will get.”

That is a lie: there are other free activities available in the park at all times, and the playground is still available during the week.

“Why rob children of their childhood? Who gains from keeping kids from playing?”

The assumptions behind these statements are lies: charging for a single facility
does not take someone’s childhood away, nor prevent them from playing.

I said you were a liar, which you are. I didn’t say you were incapable of typing truthful statements if you really tried.

101. Chaise Guevara

This debate is now an example of the Tragedy of the Commons