|
Post by sid on Nov 19, 2015 12:10:14 GMT
The big difference would be that buses wouldn't be so packed at school times leaving fare paying passengers behind. A lot of school kids only go 1 or 2 stops anyway. Taking the bus is more of a social thing for them. With all that fried chicken they eat after school, they could probably use the exercise. Exactly, I've heard people say that they would use the bus for work but they just can't get on them in the morning because they're packed with school kids, except during school holidays of course, and any suggestion that free travel has reduced traffic congestion is laughable, the exact opposite is true!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2015 12:27:24 GMT
A lot of school kids only go 1 or 2 stops anyway. Taking the bus is more of a social thing for them. With all that fried chicken they eat after school, they could probably use the exercise. Exactly, I've heard people say that they would use the bus for work but they just can't get on them in the morning because they're packed with school kids, except during school holidays of course, and any suggestion that free travel has reduced traffic congestion is laughable, the exact opposite is true! I think there should be a fare for 11-16 year olds. Maybe 50p instead of £1.50. With a cheaper one day pass. £2.00 instead of £4.40 maybe. The kids that really need the travel wouldn't have too much trouble paying that. Plus it's another way that TfL could claw back some money. That £700m is going to come from lots of little things, instead of one big thing. Part of the problem is that parents don't want their little angel going to the closest school. So instead they send them far away to a school that Ofsted says is more reputable.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 19, 2015 19:17:14 GMT
Exactly, I've heard people say that they would use the bus for work but they just can't get on them in the morning because they're packed with school kids, except during school holidays of course, and any suggestion that free travel has reduced traffic congestion is laughable, the exact opposite is true! I think there should be a fare for 11-16 year olds. Maybe 50p instead of £1.50. With a cheaper one day pass. £2.00 instead of £4.40 maybe. The kids that really need the travel wouldn't have too much trouble paying that. Plus it's another way that TfL could claw back some money. That £700m is going to come from lots of little things, instead of one big thing. Part of the problem is that parents don't want their little angel going to the closest school. So instead they send them far away to a school that Ofsted says is more reputable. There already is a child fare for those who lose their entitlement to free travel or who get a visitor discount added to an Oyster Card. The fare is 75p. The peak cap is £2.20 and off peak is £1.50. Thefefore the real world situation is more costly than you are suggesting. I don't know how you can possibly know whether children or their parents could afford to pay a fare if one was introduced. Making sweeping statements takes the debate nowhere. All anyone outside of TfL / City Hall can reasonably say is "some" may be able to afford to pay a fare. Equally some pay struggle to pay bus fares and others would not be able to afford it. The important part of the debate is what those proportions would be and how what the impacts would be from a policy change. The problem is actually nothing to do with transport policy. The problem is the result of the last 20+ years (so this is not a party political point) of education policy that has emphasised choice and diversity in provision but neglected the issues of a rising birth rate and all the consequential issues like vastly extended travel times for children and a mass mix of journey patterns. There has been a massive policy disconnect - not at all unusual in government - which has lumbered people across the country with a stupid situation. TfL is actually unusual in the way it responds relatively quickly to handle unusual but high volume flows to / from schools. In terms of the traffic congestion issue then TfL do publish a shed load of information about the use of the transport network. The relevant bits about the road network are after page 93 in the report. Travel in London report
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Nov 19, 2015 19:39:04 GMT
Exactly, I've heard people say that they would use the bus for work but they just can't get on them in the morning because they're packed with school kids, except during school holidays of course, and any suggestion that free travel has reduced traffic congestion is laughable, the exact opposite is true! I think there should be a fare for 11-16 year olds. Maybe 50p instead of £1.50. With a cheaper one day pass. £2.00 instead of £4.40 maybe. The kids that really need the travel wouldn't have too much trouble paying that. Plus it's another way that TfL could claw back some money. That £700m is going to come from lots of little things, instead of one big thing. Part of the problem is that parents don't want their little angel going to the closest school. So instead they send them far away to a school that Ofsted says is more reputable. 'Part of the problem' is also that families in insecure private rented housing - and their numbers are growing - are now having to bus their kids across boundary lines because of welfare changes brought in by this government. Say for instance you are renting a home in Waltham Forest when your child turns 11 - in the vast majority of cases you would send your child to a school within the borough, perhaps the local one (or perhaps not, a 20-30 minute bus trip away). 18 months later your landlord decides to raise the rent by an unsustainable amount, i.e. more than your Local Housing Allowance (something which has been frozen, i.e. not even moved with inflation, for several years) and/or wages will cover. The continuing increase in rental costs means you can't find anywhere local and have to move out to, say, Barking & Dagenham. Your child is now a two-bus 60-75 minute journey from their school. Fine, the zip card will cover it at the moment, even it is a time inconvenience. Then TfL decides to charge, say, £8 a week for a child bus pass. You have two kids. Your outgoings and incomings are already stripped to the bone. Where do you find an additional £16 a week? Or do you pull your kids out of that school and start them in another one? Or do they walk for an hour and 20 minutes? Or do they decide to jump the bus? (who remembers 'jumping the bus'? The practice has died away substantially since free travel for kids came in, but it was an art form back in the day). I know where the temptation would lie.. especially if that £8 is all your parent is going to give you that week. Certain boroughs in the 1990s means tested free bus travel for kids - Redbridge was one I recall. I do agree that there is an issue with kids flooding buses for the sake of a 10-15 minute walk, perhaps if it absolutely came to it then a centrally administered means testing system (zonally, including overground etc where useful between the child's home and school) would be the way forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2015 20:20:49 GMT
I see the lefties are out today. I think there should be a fare for 11-16 year olds. Maybe 50p instead of £1.50. With a cheaper one day pass. £2.00 instead of £4.40 maybe. The kids that really need the travel wouldn't have too much trouble paying that. Plus it's another way that TfL could claw back some money. That £700m is going to come from lots of little things, instead of one big thing. Part of the problem is that parents don't want their little angel going to the closest school. So instead they send them far away to a school that Ofsted says is more reputable. There already is a child fare for those who lose their entitlement to free travel or who get a visitor discount added to an Oyster Card. The fare is 75p. The peak cap is £2.20 and off peak is £1.50. Thefefore the real world situation is more costly than you are suggesting. I don't know how you can possibly know whether children or their parents could afford to pay a fare if one was introduced. Making sweeping statements takes the debate nowhere. All anyone outside of TfL / City Hall can reasonably say is "some" may be able to afford to pay a fare. Equally some pay struggle to pay bus fares and others would not be able to afford it. The important part of the debate is what those proportions would be and how what the impacts would be from a policy change. The problem is actually nothing to do with transport policy. The problem is the result of the last 20+ years (so this is not a party political point) of education policy that has emphasised choice and diversity in provision but neglected the issues of a rising birth rate and all the consequential issues like vastly extended travel times for children and a mass mix of journey patterns. There has been a massive policy disconnect - not at all unusual in government - which has lumbered people across the country with a stupid situation. TfL is actually unusual in the way it responds relatively quickly to handle unusual but high volume flows to / from schools. In terms of the traffic congestion issue then TfL do publish a shed load of information about the use of the transport network. The relevant bits about the road network are after page 93 in the report. Travel in London reportI can possibly know whether children or their parents could afford to pay a fare if one was introduced. I can possibly know because I was raised in one of the poorest parts of London. The part the media at one point liked to refer to as "poverty-stricken". What an over-exaggeration that was. Believe me, these people can afford 50p a turn for their kids to travel on a bus. Child bus fare used to be 40p, if I remember correctly. And that was what, 12 years ago? Do they have free bus travel for up to 16s in the lovely provincial areas? I think there should be a fare for 11-16 year olds. Maybe 50p instead of £1.50. With a cheaper one day pass. £2.00 instead of £4.40 maybe. The kids that really need the travel wouldn't have too much trouble paying that. Plus it's another way that TfL could claw back some money. That £700m is going to come from lots of little things, instead of one big thing. Part of the problem is that parents don't want their little angel going to the closest school. So instead they send them far away to a school that Ofsted says is more reputable. 'Part of the problem' is also that families in insecure private rented housing - and their numbers are growing - are now having to bus their kids across boundary lines because of welfare changes brought in by this government. Say for instance you are renting a home in Waltham Forest when your child turns 11 - in the vast majority of cases you would send your child to a school within the borough, perhaps the local one (or perhaps not, a 20-30 minute bus trip away). 18 months later your landlord decides to raise the rent by an unsustainable amount, i.e. more than your Local Housing Allowance (something which has been frozen, i.e. not even moved with inflation, for several years) and/or wages will cover. The continuing increase in rental costs means you can't find anywhere local and have to move out to, say, Barking & Dagenham. Your child is now a two-bus 60-75 minute journey from their school. Fine, the zip card will cover it at the moment, even it is a time inconvenience. Then TfL decides to charge, say, £8 a week for a child bus pass. You have two kids. Your outgoings and incomings are already stripped to the bone. Where do you find an additional £16 a week? Or do you pull your kids out of that school and start them in another one? Or do they walk for an hour and 20 minutes? Or do they decide to jump the bus? (who remembers 'jumping the bus'? The practice has died away substantially since free travel for kids came in, but it was an art form back in the day). I know where the temptation would lie.. especially if that £8 is all your parent is going to give you that week. Certain boroughs in the 1990s means tested free bus travel for kids - Redbridge was one I recall. I do agree that there is an issue with kids flooding buses for the sake of a 10-15 minute walk, perhaps if it absolutely came to it then a centrally administered means testing system (zonally, including overground etc where useful between the child's home and school) would be the way forward. If somebody's got all that on their plate, then bus fare is probably the least of their problems. I'll reiterate my previous argument: there are too many people in this city. It's just as well we're on the verge of World War III. It's about time we thinned the numbers down a bit. (And yes, we can start with me.)
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Nov 19, 2015 20:35:42 GMT
I see the lefties are out today. There already is a child fare for those who lose their entitlement to free travel or who get a visitor discount added to an Oyster Card. The fare is 75p. The peak cap is £2.20 and off peak is £1.50. Thefefore the real world situation is more costly than you are suggesting. I don't know how you can possibly know whether children or their parents could afford to pay a fare if one was introduced. Making sweeping statements takes the debate nowhere. All anyone outside of TfL / City Hall can reasonably say is "some" may be able to afford to pay a fare. Equally some pay struggle to pay bus fares and others would not be able to afford it. The important part of the debate is what those proportions would be and how what the impacts would be from a policy change. The problem is actually nothing to do with transport policy. The problem is the result of the last 20+ years (so this is not a party political point) of education policy that has emphasised choice and diversity in provision but neglected the issues of a rising birth rate and all the consequential issues like vastly extended travel times for children and a mass mix of journey patterns. There has been a massive policy disconnect - not at all unusual in government - which has lumbered people across the country with a stupid situation. TfL is actually unusual in the way it responds relatively quickly to handle unusual but high volume flows to / from schools. In terms of the traffic congestion issue then TfL do publish a shed load of information about the use of the transport network. The relevant bits about the road network are after page 93 in the report. Travel in London reportI can possibly know whether children or their parents could afford to pay a fare if one was introduced. I can possibly know because I was raised in one of the poorest parts of London. The part the media at one point liked to refer to as "poverty-stricken". What an over-exaggeration that was. Believe me, these people can afford 50p a turn for their kids to travel on a bus. Child bus fare used to be 40p, if I remember correctly. And that was what, 12 years ago? Do they have free bus travel for up to 16s in the lovely provincial areas? 'Part of the problem' is also that families in insecure private rented housing - and their numbers are growing - are now having to bus their kids across boundary lines because of welfare changes brought in by this government. Say for instance you are renting a home in Waltham Forest when your child turns 11 - in the vast majority of cases you would send your child to a school within the borough, perhaps the local one (or perhaps not, a 20-30 minute bus trip away). 18 months later your landlord decides to raise the rent by an unsustainable amount, i.e. more than your Local Housing Allowance (something which has been frozen, i.e. not even moved with inflation, for several years) and/or wages will cover. The continuing increase in rental costs means you can't find anywhere local and have to move out to, say, Barking & Dagenham. Your child is now a two-bus 60-75 minute journey from their school. Fine, the zip card will cover it at the moment, even it is a time inconvenience. Then TfL decides to charge, say, £8 a week for a child bus pass. You have two kids. Your outgoings and incomings are already stripped to the bone. Where do you find an additional £16 a week? Or do you pull your kids out of that school and start them in another one? Or do they walk for an hour and 20 minutes? Or do they decide to jump the bus? (who remembers 'jumping the bus'? The practice has died away substantially since free travel for kids came in, but it was an art form back in the day). I know where the temptation would lie.. especially if that £8 is all your parent is going to give you that week. Certain boroughs in the 1990s means tested free bus travel for kids - Redbridge was one I recall. I do agree that there is an issue with kids flooding buses for the sake of a 10-15 minute walk, perhaps if it absolutely came to it then a centrally administered means testing system (zonally, including overground etc where useful between the child's home and school) would be the way forward. If somebody's got all that on their plate, then bus fare is probably the least of their problems. I'll reiterate my previous argument: there are too many people in this city. It's just as well we're on the verge of World War III. It's about time we thinned the numbers down a bit. (And yes, we can start with me.) "Leftie".. sick burn, my friend. I'll live with the label. I spent three decades in an area of London with similar attributes to the ones you describe yourself as growing up in, on one of the worst estates in that area. You're right, nobody was walking to school. I was given my £4 a week for a bus pass. It was tight but it was doable. Basically being in social housing with social rents meant stability, if not much money. You could predict ins/outs from one six month block to the next. But the landscape has changed significantly in the decade since I left education. I know a few families on some sort of welfare assistance (and most of those are in work) who are seeing over half of their income go on rent in private households. In a clumsy attempt to steer this back onto topic I'll say this - should TfL have a remit in mitigating the social impacts of the driving forces behind this? And is it fair that households that never expected to have to find those additional funds now need to? Fine, I had to buy my bus pass - but I knew I needed to. And if you're convinced that London is about to go through it's own version of Threads or something then, by all means, go for broke!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 19, 2015 20:44:23 GMT
I see the lefties are out today. There is no need to make insulting sweeping remarks. I made no adverse remark about you. There already is a child fare for those who lose their entitlement to free travel or who get a visitor discount added to an Oyster Card. The fare is 75p. The peak cap is £2.20 and off peak is £1.50. Thefefore the real world situation is more costly than you are suggesting. I don't know how you can possibly know whether children or their parents could afford to pay a fare if one was introduced. Making sweeping statements takes the debate nowhere. All anyone outside of TfL / City Hall can reasonably say is "some" may be able to afford to pay a fare. Equally some pay struggle to pay bus fares and others would not be able to afford it. The important part of the debate is what those proportions would be and how what the impacts would be from a policy change. The problem is actually nothing to do with transport policy. The problem is the result of the last 20+ years (so this is not a party political point) of education policy that has emphasised choice and diversity in provision but neglected the issues of a rising birth rate and all the consequential issues like vastly extended travel times for children and a mass mix of journey patterns. There has been a massive policy disconnect - not at all unusual in government - which has lumbered people across the country with a stupid situation. TfL is actually unusual in the way it responds relatively quickly to handle unusual but high volume flows to / from schools. In terms of the traffic congestion issue then TfL do publish a shed load of information about the use of the transport network. The relevant bits about the road network are after page 93 in the report. Travel in London reportI can possibly know whether children or their parents could afford to pay a fare if one was introduced. I can possibly know because I was raised in one of the poorest parts of London. The part the media at one point liked to refer to as "poverty-stricken". What an over-exaggeration that was. Believe me, these people can afford 50p a turn for their kids to travel on a bus. Child bus fare used to be 40p, if I remember correctly. And that was what, 12 years ago? Do they have free bus travel for up to 16s in the lovely provincial areas? By your own admission you know something about one part of London from 12 years ago. You don't know the situation London wide. I don't and I doubt anyone who posts on here has access to the data. I was gracious enough to offer a range of possibilities about affordability which you've chosen to ignone. I believe some local authorities do offer free travel on the London model - IIRC some councils in Greater Manchester do. Beyond that then yes there is a very wide range of child concessions ranging from flat fares to half adult fare or 2/3s adult fare. If somebody's got all that on their plate, then bus fare is probably the least of their problems. I'll reiterate my previous argument: there are too many people in this city. It's just as well we're on the verge of World War III. It's about time we thinned the numbers down a bit. (And yes, we can start with me.) Unfortunately unless you turn London into an economic wasteland then it is always going to remain attractive to an awful lot of people. No politician of any party is going to want to see London fail economically because it would pull down the national economy with it. What else do you suggest - forced eviction? armed deportation? death squads randomly killing people who look like failures?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 19, 2015 21:06:53 GMT
Regardless of what parents can or can't afford to pay in the current economic climate Joe Public should not be expected to pay for other peoples kids free travel.
Oh and just for the record my grandchildren benefit from free travel, still doesn't mean that I agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 20, 2015 1:47:56 GMT
I remember Lambeth at one stage wouldn't fund my free travel to secondary school (before the days of Oyster) all because it was just over 3 miles from my house and it was yards over their borough boundary in neighbouring Croydon. They coughed up in the end but had they not, we wouldn't of been able to afford the bus especially when the 196 was my only bus that served my school from Brixton and wasn't exactly reliable at the time meaning more often than not, I'd of had to pay for two buses there and two home. As I got older, I did think that actually, free travel should be re-positioned to other passengers rather than kids but in the last few years, my stance has changed particularly as the Conservatives start driving the cuts in. Families now are having to scrimp on everything, even energy and food in some cases, so having free travel at least gives them one less thing to worry about.
I'm also no leftie either lol.
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Nov 20, 2015 19:19:19 GMT
One things for sure, no one has the bottle to to end free child travel.....................
I bet the train staff are looking forward to free child travel..............
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 23, 2015 13:22:03 GMT
One things for sure, no one has the bottle to to end free child travel..................... I bet the train staff are looking forward to free child travel.............. Well given the choice of ending free child travel or facing cuts in services I can guess what most people would prefer, and yes I'm sure you're right about train staff
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 15:54:40 GMT
Make no mistake, I don't want to take free bus travel away from children, just 11-16 year olds.
Secondary school kids exhibit a very strong mob mentality. They are all trying to fit in the best they can, to avoid being rejected socially, so they mimic each other. I'm sure older members will remember corporal punishment in schools. Ever since that was outlawed, the behaviour of secondary school kids has taken a turn for the worse. So bad behaviour among students spreads like a forest fire in dry weather.
The only people who have any control are senior members of staff. I've been there. If a senior teacher comes in and threatens to phone your parents, all of sudden you get the message. In other words, fear is used to control secondary school kids in this day and age, not violence.
That's inside school. Outside of school all control is lost, and hoards of idiot teenagers are let loose on the unsuspecting public. This happens everyday at three or four o'clock.
The idea behind a reduced bus fare for secondary school kids is to act as a deterrent. To deter mobs of teenagers in uniform from disrupting innocent bus travel. To deter them from standing in the gangway whilst passengers are trying to alight. To deter crush loading when the capacity is needed for working adults. To deter fighting on the upper deck. To deter littering our relatively clean and tidy buses with fast food, drink cans and crisp wrappers. And to deter mindless vandalism of our expensive public convenience vehicles. Yes we know "chaz woz 'ere" in 2015, and we know he burnt the back of the seat with his cigarette lighter, and we don't want him to do it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 23, 2015 18:40:46 GMT
Make no mistake, I don't want to take free bus travel away from children, just 11-16 year olds. Secondary school kids exhibit a very strong mob mentality. They are all trying to fit in the best they can, to avoid being rejected socially, so they mimic each other. I'm sure older members will remember corporal punishment in schools. Ever since that was outlawed, the behaviour of secondary school kids has taken a turn for the worse. So bad behaviour among students spreads like a forest fire in dry weather. The only people who have any control are senior members of staff. I've been there. If a senior teacher comes in and threatens to phone your parents, all of sudden you get the message. In other words, fear is used to control secondary school kids in this day and age, not violence. That's inside school. Outside of school all control is lost, and hoards of idiot teenagers are let loose on the unsuspecting public. This happens everyday at three or four o'clock. The idea behind a reduced bus fare for secondary school kids is to act as a deterrent. To deter mobs of teenagers in uniform from disrupting innocent bus travel. To deter them from standing in the gangway whilst passengers are trying to alight. To deter crush loading when the capacity is needed for working adults. To deter fighting on the upper deck. To deter littering our relatively clean and tidy buses with fast food, drink cans and crisp wrappers. And to deter mindless vandalism of our expensive public convenience vehicles. Yes we know "chaz woz 'ere" in 2015, and we know he burnt the back of the seat with his cigarette lighter, and we don't want him to do it anymore. I want to take it away from all children, and that includes my own grandchildren before anyone calls me a heartless g*t! It's something that should never have been introduced in the first place, it just encourages this something for nothing mentality that seems so prevalent in todays society and they resent having to pay when they're older. It's a luxury that we cannot justify in the current economic climate. And I agree with you about the anti social behavior problems, I know somebody will say not all kids behave like that but there is no getting away from the fact a significant proportion do.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 23, 2015 20:06:15 GMT
Make no mistake, I don't want to take free bus travel away from children, just 11-16 year olds. Secondary school kids exhibit a very strong mob mentality. They are all trying to fit in the best they can, to avoid being rejected socially, so they mimic each other. I'm sure older members will remember corporal punishment in schools. Ever since that was outlawed, the behaviour of secondary school kids has taken a turn for the worse. So bad behaviour among students spreads like a forest fire in dry weather. The only people who have any control are senior members of staff. I've been there. If a senior teacher comes in and threatens to phone your parents, all of sudden you get the message. In other words, fear is used to control secondary school kids in this day and age, not violence. That's inside school. Outside of school all control is lost, and hoards of idiot teenagers are let loose on the unsuspecting public. This happens everyday at three or four o'clock. The idea behind a reduced bus fare for secondary school kids is to act as a deterrent. To deter mobs of teenagers in uniform from disrupting innocent bus travel. To deter them from standing in the gangway whilst passengers are trying to alight. To deter crush loading when the capacity is needed for working adults. To deter fighting on the upper deck. To deter littering our relatively clean and tidy buses with fast food, drink cans and crisp wrappers. And to deter mindless vandalism of our expensive public convenience vehicles. Yes we know "chaz woz 'ere" in 2015, and we know he burnt the back of the seat with his cigarette lighter, and we don't want him to do it anymore. I want to take it away from all children, and that includes my own grandchildren before anyone calls me a heartless g*t! It's something that should never have been introduced in the first place, it just encourages this something for nothing mentality that seems so prevalent in todays society and they resent having to pay when they're older. It's a luxury that we cannot justify in the current economic climate. And I agree with you about the anti social behavior problems, I know somebody will say not all kids behave like that but there is no getting away from the fact a significant proportion do. I wouldn't even call it a significant proportion, it's more like 5%. You do need to consider that all families will not be as well off as others and simply cannot afford to send their child by bus, even if it is 75p per day.Children have to attend school for 200 days per year. Let's say that they use one bus to get to school, however most of them probably use more than one. Over a year that equates to £300. And £600 if they use 4 buses etc. £300 could feed a whole family for about two months. If you feel that children should get free travel scrapped then elderly people should as well, as they are dependents as well when used to calculate the dependency ratio of the country. Also as you refer to the economy, should free travel be scrapped for a lot of children then you will get many that probably will be prevented from attending schools of their choice, this decreases motivation for them especially should they be a very smart kid that cannot afford to go to a school which can cater for their abilities. This means that less children leave with better qualifications and that means that you will end up with much less skilled workers compared to what you potentially could have got. This isn't good for the economy is it?
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Nov 23, 2015 20:11:50 GMT
My comments in italics. Just to be clear, these are my observations regarding my experience at my (admittedly rather tame) school ( a couple of years ago). I cannot speak for other schools, but I will object to this grouping (which I incidentally suffered from in my school years on numerous occasions). Don't withdraw free travel from 11-15 year-olds, withdraw it from those who misuse the buses. Make no mistake, I don't want to take free bus travel away from children, just 11-16 year olds. Secondary school kids exhibit a very strong mob mentality. They are all trying to fit in the best they can, to avoid being rejected socially, so they mimic each other. I'm sure older members will remember corporal punishment in schools. Ever since that was outlawed, the behaviour of secondary school kids has taken a turn for the worse. So bad behaviour among students spreads like a forest fire in dry weather. The only people who have any control are senior members of staff. I've been there. If a senior teacher comes in and threatens to phone your parents, all of sudden you get the message. In other words, fear is used to control secondary school kids in this day and age, not violence. Please don't make assumptions. In the last two schools I went to, each staff member garnered at least an acceptable amount respect, and people who misbehaved did so at their peril. That's inside school. Outside of school all control is lost, and hoards of idiot teenagers are let loose on the unsuspecting public. This happens everyday at three or four o'clock. Let loose? To go home after a long day and clear piles of homeworkThe idea behind a reduced bus fare for secondary school kids is to act as a deterrent. To deter mobs of teenagers in uniform from disrupting innocent bus travel. Unfortunately, education is compulsory in the UK. They have to get to and from school unless they live at school.To deter them from standing in the gangway whilst passengers are trying to alight. Tell that to the adults refusing to stand clear of the doors even.To deter crush loading when the capacity is needed for working adults. Children need to get to school as well. What you are saying is they shouldn't get the bus, and they should get the car instead. Now those working adults are in a slightly emptier bus, which isn't moving due to congestion!
To deter fighting on the upper deck. I wonder how many times I witnessed that... 0 times.To deter littering our relatively clean and tidy buses with fast food, drink cans and crisp wrappers. Trust me, we had an aversion to litter on the bus. The number of times we had to stop "working adults" from leaving apple cores in the luggage area, foil on the floor, I couldn't count if I had 1000 times the amount of fingers.And to deter mindless vandalism of our expensive public convenience vehicles. Yes we know "chaz woz 'ere" in 2015, and we know he burnt the back of the seat with his cigarette lighter, and we don't want him to do it anymore. The nearest we got to that was drawing faces in the condensation !
|
|