Concern over future of Warrington's children's centre

Concern over future of Warrington's children's centre

Concern over future of Warrington's children's centre

First published in News

SIX of Warrington’s 12 children’s centres face an uncertain future as council cuts start to bite.

Town Hall bosses revealed this week that half of the town’s centres could either be restructured or closed.

Under new plans, bases at Callands, Sankey Valley, Lymm, Butterflies in Woolston, Woodlands in Birchwood and Cygnets in Appleton are under threat.

The council insists no decisions have yet been made, but letters have been sent out to residents this week about the proposed changes.

Clr Jean Carter, executive board member for children and young people’s services, said she hoped no closures would be needed.

She said: “We are facing significant reductions in our budget from central Government and numerous local authorities have closed many of their centres altogether, amounting to hundreds of closures nationwide.

“We hope that, with residents’ help, our proposals will mean we do not need to do this and we can also use this opportunity to look at how we can make some significant positive changes to services.”

Clr Hitesh Patel (Great Sankey – Lab) added that unless the Government provides a ‘decent level of funding, important services are going to continue to be threatened’.

He added: “In Warrington we have lost £89 of funding per head of population, whereas as in the south of England, towns like Guildford have only had £24 per head of population shaved off their budget. That’s just not fair."

A consultation, which closes on August 22, has now been launched to allow residents to have their say.

As part of the plans, the council would launch a ‘super site’ in Great Sankey and Sankey Valley and Callands children’s centres would be merged and relocated.

Lymm, Culcheth, Woolston, Cygnets and Woodlands would see its services ‘redesigned’ – although it is unclear exactly what that means.

A council spokesman said: “We are hoping to creatively redesign services in a way that we hope will mean that no physical buildings will be closing.

“We need people to get involved and tell us what services are most important. We are committed to retaining as many jobs as possible and avoiding job losses.”

But the consultation announcement has raised concerns that the named children’s centres in the proposal will be the ones hardest hit.

Clr Ian Marks (Lymm – Lib Dem) said he was ‘surprised’ to see certain centres already identified for the redesign and said it would be ‘disappointing’ to see the Lymm centre close.

He added: “I would encourage people in the area, who use the centre, to make sure they have their say.”

Peter Walker (Appleton – Lib Dem) described the centre in Appleton as a ‘valuable and valued resource’ but said it was important to wait to see the results of the consultation.

But added: “There’s no question about it. People would be sorry to see it go.”

Clr Pauline Nelson (Birchwood – Lab) added that it was ‘inevitable’ that non-statutory services would be scaled back due to the £50m cuts from the council's budget.

She said: “Instead of having a permanent Sure Start centre, the council is proposing to now run outreach sessions so local people can still get services.”

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:31am Thu 26 Jun 14

grey_man says...

Plenty of money for 20 mph signs in cul de sacs however
Plenty of money for 20 mph signs in cul de sacs however grey_man
  • Score: 1

10:44am Thu 26 Jun 14

Cllr Russ Bowden says...

The 20mph scheme is funded directly from Government grants under the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). This money can't be used for anything else and so it has no bearing on any other budget decisions that have to be taken by the Council.

Funding for services - whether it is Children's Centres, libraries, potholes or grass cutting - comes from the Council's revenue budget, which has suffered cuts of more than £60m from this Government since 2010.
The 20mph scheme is funded directly from Government grants under the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). This money can't be used for anything else and so it has no bearing on any other budget decisions that have to be taken by the Council. Funding for services - whether it is Children's Centres, libraries, potholes or grass cutting - comes from the Council's revenue budget, which has suffered cuts of more than £60m from this Government since 2010. Cllr Russ Bowden
  • Score: 5

11:15am Thu 26 Jun 14

grey_man says...

Did the Government pay for the pilot scheme Russ? And the council time taken up on the 20mph signs?
Did the Government pay for the pilot scheme Russ? And the council time taken up on the 20mph signs? grey_man
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Universally Challenged says...

I doubt the one off cost of a pilot scheme and associated council worker time could offset the ongoing costs of keeping childrens' centres open.
I doubt the one off cost of a pilot scheme and associated council worker time could offset the ongoing costs of keeping childrens' centres open. Universally Challenged
  • Score: 2

4:58pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Youthman says...

So not only are cuts to children and families council are cutting youth services too soon there will be no services disgrace by a labour government I'm ashamed to be a resident of Warrington. Has anyone noticed how they delayed these discussions until after the elections??
So not only are cuts to children and families council are cutting youth services too soon there will be no services disgrace by a labour government I'm ashamed to be a resident of Warrington. Has anyone noticed how they delayed these discussions until after the elections?? Youthman
  • Score: -5

5:16pm Thu 26 Jun 14

grey_man says...

Universally Challenged wrote:
I doubt the one off cost of a pilot scheme and associated council worker time could offset the ongoing costs of keeping childrens' centres open.
Perhaps not but they spent two years and a six figure sum on it.
[quote][p][bold]Universally Challenged[/bold] wrote: I doubt the one off cost of a pilot scheme and associated council worker time could offset the ongoing costs of keeping childrens' centres open.[/p][/quote]Perhaps not but they spent two years and a six figure sum on it. grey_man
  • Score: -7

6:28pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Cllr Russ Bowden says...

grey_man: The 20mph pilot was agreed in 2008 and ran through 2009/10. This was under the previous administration and before I joined the Council (in May 2010). I believe that the cost was about £100k, but I don't know how it was funded and I am not going to guess - so I will find out.

Youthman: None of the discussions were delayed, the review of Children's Centres was announced in the Budget that was unanimously approved at full Council in March and reported by the Warrington Guardian. Every single one of the Council's funding decisions is difficult - you couldn't expect anything else when you have £60m a year cut from your funding! And this isn't just happening in Warrington, it is happening to Councils all over the UK - but the North is certainly bearing the brunt of the Government cuts in comparison with the South.
grey_man: The 20mph pilot was agreed in 2008 and ran through 2009/10. This was under the previous administration and before I joined the Council (in May 2010). I believe that the cost was about £100k, but I don't know how it was funded and I am not going to guess - so I will find out. Youthman: None of the discussions were delayed, the review of Children's Centres was announced in the Budget that was unanimously approved at full Council in March and reported by the Warrington Guardian. Every single one of the Council's funding decisions is difficult - you couldn't expect anything else when you have £60m a year cut from your funding! And this isn't just happening in Warrington, it is happening to Councils all over the UK - but the North is certainly bearing the brunt of the Government cuts in comparison with the South. Cllr Russ Bowden
  • Score: 7

6:45pm Thu 26 Jun 14

grey_man says...

Except in Warrington Russ. Here you are making sure the cuts are felt more in the South
Except in Warrington Russ. Here you are making sure the cuts are felt more in the South grey_man
  • Score: -5

6:54pm Thu 26 Jun 14

grey_man says...

And the council did cover up the decision to close Stockton Heath CRC until after the election. That was taken in secret in February. Nor did it consult or consider other options.
And the council did cover up the decision to close Stockton Heath CRC until after the election. That was taken in secret in February. Nor did it consult or consider other options. grey_man
  • Score: -5

7:07pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Cllr Russ Bowden says...

There is no distinction at all between North and South when it comes to the implementation of savings and cuts in Warrington. Why would there be? Almost half of the Labour Councillors represent wards in Warrington South!

As for Stockton Heath CRC, again the Budget included ~£800k savings from 'Warrington Waste'. The CRC contract had to be re-tendered and the selected tender identified closure of the site in order to deliver the required saving. It was a contractual decision and there was no pre-determination that any of the 3 CRC sites would close.
There is no distinction at all between North and South when it comes to the implementation of savings and cuts in Warrington. Why would there be? Almost half of the Labour Councillors represent wards in Warrington South! As for Stockton Heath CRC, again the Budget included ~£800k savings from 'Warrington Waste'. The CRC contract had to be re-tendered and the selected tender identified closure of the site in order to deliver the required saving. It was a contractual decision and there was no pre-determination that any of the 3 CRC sites would close. Cllr Russ Bowden
  • Score: 8

9:04pm Thu 26 Jun 14

grey-area says...

Just because it's funded from Central Government, it doesn't mean we have to have signs in every nook and cranny across the borough. It's still our money that funds it. Could I suggest that the signs be put up in roadways that could support travelling faster than 20 mph. In some of the roads, you can't get out of second gear. Still a waste of taxpayers money. Unless there are some hidden statistics, that I've missed, that prove the signs are really value for money.
....and how does the council propose to police the said speed limits?
Just because it's funded from Central Government, it doesn't mean we have to have signs in every nook and cranny across the borough. It's still our money that funds it. Could I suggest that the signs be put up in roadways that could support travelling faster than 20 mph. In some of the roads, you can't get out of second gear. Still a waste of taxpayers money. Unless there are some hidden statistics, that I've missed, that prove the signs are really value for money. ....and how does the council propose to police the said speed limits? grey-area
  • Score: -1

10:44pm Thu 26 Jun 14

PageA says...

grey-area wrote:
Just because it's funded from Central Government, it doesn't mean we have to have signs in every nook and cranny across the borough. It's still our money that funds it. Could I suggest that the signs be put up in roadways that could support travelling faster than 20 mph. In some of the roads, you can't get out of second gear. Still a waste of taxpayers money. Unless there are some hidden statistics, that I've missed, that prove the signs are really value for money.
....and how does the council propose to police the said speed limits?
Grey-man, can you put your problem with the f****** signs into some sort of perspective please and save it for an article about...er...20mph signs ffs!

Councillor Bowden is giving his time to answer points raised on here, have you got nothing to say to him about the damage these cuts are going to do to the young people in our town? The children in Warrington living with serious mental health and anxiety issues. Children who's families are at breaking point...children who's families have drink and drug dependancy..children who are at risk of sexual exploitation, wandering the streets late at night with real adult role model in the household, Children who care for their sick parents or siblings..children who are being sexually abused and have no one to speak to. Children who are considering experimenting with sex for the first time,Children who are considering experimenting with drugs for the first time, Children in your town on your watch. Efficiently targeting services is nonsense regime speak. If youthman has a case load 50 at risk children. How is reducing the number of colleagues he has and number of venues he can use going to make things more efficient!?! What you'll do is break him. The only way he will avoid being broken is to stop caring. This is a DISASTER for children in this town. Will you please stop managing our reaction and admit that this decision is a DISASTER for children in this town? Whether your hand was forced or not by the government..This is an attack of the kids and the kids who need help are going to suffer the most. How far back in time have we just fallen with this decision? When were things as bad as you're proposing to make them? also..Where is Tom Jennings..the self-titled Socialist Pied Piper of Warrington youth? Would you agree to a Jeremy Kyle Lie detector test to answer this question..."Did you invite Tom Jennings into the council so that you could manage his reaction when you decimated children's services?"

Kids..You've been sold out.
[quote][p][bold]grey-area[/bold] wrote: Just because it's funded from Central Government, it doesn't mean we have to have signs in every nook and cranny across the borough. It's still our money that funds it. Could I suggest that the signs be put up in roadways that could support travelling faster than 20 mph. In some of the roads, you can't get out of second gear. Still a waste of taxpayers money. Unless there are some hidden statistics, that I've missed, that prove the signs are really value for money. ....and how does the council propose to police the said speed limits?[/p][/quote]Grey-man, can you put your problem with the f****** signs into some sort of perspective please and save it for an article about...er...20mph signs ffs! Councillor Bowden is giving his time to answer points raised on here, have you got nothing to say to him about the damage these cuts are going to do to the young people in our town? The children in Warrington living with serious mental health and anxiety issues. Children who's families are at breaking point...children who's families have drink and drug dependancy..children who are at risk of sexual exploitation, wandering the streets late at night with real adult role model in the household, Children who care for their sick parents or siblings..children who are being sexually abused and have no one to speak to. Children who are considering experimenting with sex for the first time,Children who are considering experimenting with drugs for the first time, Children in your town on your watch. Efficiently targeting services is nonsense regime speak. If youthman has a case load 50 at risk children. How is reducing the number of colleagues he has and number of venues he can use going to make things more efficient!?! What you'll do is break him. The only way he will avoid being broken is to stop caring. This is a DISASTER for children in this town. Will you please stop managing our reaction and admit that this decision is a DISASTER for children in this town? Whether your hand was forced or not by the government..This is an attack of the kids and the kids who need help are going to suffer the most. How far back in time have we just fallen with this decision? When were things as bad as you're proposing to make them? also..Where is Tom Jennings..the self-titled Socialist Pied Piper of Warrington youth? Would you agree to a Jeremy Kyle Lie detector test to answer this question..."Did you invite Tom Jennings into the council so that you could manage his reaction when you decimated children's services?" Kids..You've been sold out. PageA
  • Score: -6

2:09am Fri 27 Jun 14

grey_man says...

Actually that is exactly the point I was making. This council always has plenty of budget for the things it wants to have budget for, be that loans to loss making internet businesses, pointless road signage or tarting up the Town Hall. Less so for essential services that make a difference to peoples' lives.
Actually that is exactly the point I was making. This council always has plenty of budget for the things it wants to have budget for, be that loans to loss making internet businesses, pointless road signage or tarting up the Town Hall. Less so for essential services that make a difference to peoples' lives. grey_man
  • Score: -1

2:12am Fri 27 Jun 14

grey_man says...

Cllr Russ Bowden wrote:
There is no distinction at all between North and South when it comes to the implementation of savings and cuts in Warrington. Why would there be? Almost half of the Labour Councillors represent wards in Warrington South!

As for Stockton Heath CRC, again the Budget included ~£800k savings from 'Warrington Waste'. The CRC contract had to be re-tendered and the selected tender identified closure of the site in order to deliver the required saving. It was a contractual decision and there was no pre-determination that any of the 3 CRC sites would close.
There is a self evident distinction between North and South. Hence why this decision was taken in private and kept secret for four months until the elections were out of the way.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Russ Bowden[/bold] wrote: There is no distinction at all between North and South when it comes to the implementation of savings and cuts in Warrington. Why would there be? Almost half of the Labour Councillors represent wards in Warrington South! As for Stockton Heath CRC, again the Budget included ~£800k savings from 'Warrington Waste'. The CRC contract had to be re-tendered and the selected tender identified closure of the site in order to deliver the required saving. It was a contractual decision and there was no pre-determination that any of the 3 CRC sites would close.[/p][/quote]There is a self evident distinction between North and South. Hence why this decision was taken in private and kept secret for four months until the elections were out of the way. grey_man
  • Score: -3

12:56pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Cllr Russ Bowden says...

PageA: This Council administration has consistently rejected any savings proposals around the CAMHS provision (which covers childrens mental health). You may have seen the national press article recently which showed that many Councils across the country have cut these services - Warrington is one of the few that has not.

That said, the vast majority of the Council's spending goes on statutory services, such as social care and residential placements for children and adults. All services provided by the Council are highly valued, but given the scale of the cuts then it is inevitable that some of this will fall across services that nobody, on principle, would want to cut. The only thing that we can do is drive out every available saving elsewhere first and ensure that we fully understand the issues associated with those services where cuts are made.

I make no apologies for raising the same point again - we have had >£60m cut from the Council's annual budget. This means that all Council services will be affected to varying degrees and that is a hard thing to stomach for any elected Member.

Grey-man: The Council does not find money for the things that it wants in the budget. Much of what you list is capital funding or else ringfenced grants (like the 20mph signs) and there is a key distinction between them. The important point is that capital funding can not be spent to shore up the revenue budget. It might be inconvenient, but that is the law.

One of the key things about the last 2 WBC Budgets has been the focus on generating income. For example, our loans to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) will see hundreds of new homes built in Warrington, offering social and affordable housing that is badly needed, delivering genuine social benefit by revitalising communities and getting the right balance of stock to deal with issues like the 'bedroom tax'. It also happens that this year, we will receive about £3.6m of income from those schemes. That money can go into the Council coffers and be used to balance the budget - without it, we would be having to find yet more cuts. Which would you rather have?

Re Stockton Heath CRC, I gave you the answer - no decision was taken prior to the re-tendering exercise.
PageA: This Council administration has consistently rejected any savings proposals around the CAMHS provision (which covers childrens mental health). You may have seen the national press article recently which showed that many Councils across the country have cut these services - Warrington is one of the few that has not. That said, the vast majority of the Council's spending goes on statutory services, such as social care and residential placements for children and adults. All services provided by the Council are highly valued, but given the scale of the cuts then it is inevitable that some of this will fall across services that nobody, on principle, would want to cut. The only thing that we can do is drive out every available saving elsewhere first and ensure that we fully understand the issues associated with those services where cuts are made. I make no apologies for raising the same point again - we have had >£60m cut from the Council's annual budget. This means that all Council services will be affected to varying degrees and that is a hard thing to stomach for any elected Member. Grey-man: The Council does not find money for the things that it wants in the budget. Much of what you list is capital funding or else ringfenced grants (like the 20mph signs) and there is a key distinction between them. The important point is that capital funding can not be spent to shore up the revenue budget. It might be inconvenient, but that is the law. One of the key things about the last 2 WBC Budgets has been the focus on generating income. For example, our loans to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) will see hundreds of new homes built in Warrington, offering social and affordable housing that is badly needed, delivering genuine social benefit by revitalising communities and getting the right balance of stock to deal with issues like the 'bedroom tax'. It also happens that this year, we will receive about £3.6m of income from those schemes. That money can go into the Council coffers and be used to balance the budget - without it, we would be having to find yet more cuts. Which would you rather have? Re Stockton Heath CRC, I gave you the answer - no decision was taken prior to the re-tendering exercise. Cllr Russ Bowden
  • Score: 2

1:16pm Fri 27 Jun 14

PageA says...

grey_man wrote:
Actually that is exactly the point I was making. This council always has plenty of budget for the things it wants to have budget for, be that loans to loss making internet businesses, pointless road signage or tarting up the Town Hall. Less so for essential services that make a difference to peoples' lives.
I understand grey_man but what you're effectively doing is diluting this issue by discussion 20 mph signs, loans and now the tip. You do that and you'll get waved away. Councillor Bowden, at a time when mental health problems in young people are going through the roof, at a time when children are leaving home because and don't have anyone to talk to..despite all the platitudes regarding efficiency cost savings involving more work for less people with fewer resources..would you agree that this announcement is a DISASTER for vulnerable children in this town? I appreciate that Grey man has given you a moving target but mine is not. I've asked some very direct questions and as you've been gracious enough to join us in this conversation I would appreciate a reply if you would be so kind.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: Actually that is exactly the point I was making. This council always has plenty of budget for the things it wants to have budget for, be that loans to loss making internet businesses, pointless road signage or tarting up the Town Hall. Less so for essential services that make a difference to peoples' lives.[/p][/quote]I understand grey_man but what you're effectively doing is diluting this issue by discussion 20 mph signs, loans and now the tip. You do that and you'll get waved away. Councillor Bowden, at a time when mental health problems in young people are going through the roof, at a time when children are leaving home because and don't have anyone to talk to..despite all the platitudes regarding efficiency cost savings involving more work for less people with fewer resources..would you agree that this announcement is a DISASTER for vulnerable children in this town? I appreciate that Grey man has given you a moving target but mine is not. I've asked some very direct questions and as you've been gracious enough to join us in this conversation I would appreciate a reply if you would be so kind. PageA
  • Score: -6

1:24pm Fri 27 Jun 14

madmuppet says...

I beg the council to not do this. When my daughter was born my wife was given bad advice from a midwife and these services assisted her and made her feel like a mother. She had visited a number of the centers where all the staff were fantastic and gave there time after the sessions to help. By removing these centers you are impacting on the well-being of mothers and children both who need these services. I do not buy there is insufficient funding for these areas. Surely the £60 million can be saved from reducing MP's and Councillors expenses, travel and second homes. WBC already spend very little money on maintaining highways and foot ways and have already reduce bin collections to once every two weeks. Why should we, the tax payers, be penalized by WBC's failure to manage their books effectively. I am considering the implications of not paying my Council tax now as I fail to see where the money i provide each moth is going.
I beg the council to not do this. When my daughter was born my wife was given bad advice from a midwife and these services assisted her and made her feel like a mother. She had visited a number of the centers where all the staff were fantastic and gave there time after the sessions to help. By removing these centers you are impacting on the well-being of mothers and children both who need these services. I do not buy there is insufficient funding for these areas. Surely the £60 million can be saved from reducing MP's and Councillors expenses, travel and second homes. WBC already spend very little money on maintaining highways and foot ways and have already reduce bin collections to once every two weeks. Why should we, the tax payers, be penalized by WBC's failure to manage their books effectively. I am considering the implications of not paying my Council tax now as I fail to see where the money i provide each moth is going. madmuppet
  • Score: 6

1:28pm Fri 27 Jun 14

PageA says...

Cllr Russ Bowden wrote:
PageA: This Council administration has consistently rejected any savings proposals around the CAMHS provision (which covers childrens mental health). You may have seen the national press article recently which showed that many Councils across the country have cut these services - Warrington is one of the few that has not.

That said, the vast majority of the Council's spending goes on statutory services, such as social care and residential placements for children and adults. All services provided by the Council are highly valued, but given the scale of the cuts then it is inevitable that some of this will fall across services that nobody, on principle, would want to cut. The only thing that we can do is drive out every available saving elsewhere first and ensure that we fully understand the issues associated with those services where cuts are made.

I make no apologies for raising the same point again - we have had >£60m cut from the Council's annual budget. This means that all Council services will be affected to varying degrees and that is a hard thing to stomach for any elected Member.

Grey-man: The Council does not find money for the things that it wants in the budget. Much of what you list is capital funding or else ringfenced grants (like the 20mph signs) and there is a key distinction between them. The important point is that capital funding can not be spent to shore up the revenue budget. It might be inconvenient, but that is the law.

One of the key things about the last 2 WBC Budgets has been the focus on generating income. For example, our loans to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) will see hundreds of new homes built in Warrington, offering social and affordable housing that is badly needed, delivering genuine social benefit by revitalising communities and getting the right balance of stock to deal with issues like the 'bedroom tax'. It also happens that this year, we will receive about £3.6m of income from those schemes. That money can go into the Council coffers and be used to balance the budget - without it, we would be having to find yet more cuts. Which would you rather have?

Re Stockton Heath CRC, I gave you the answer - no decision was taken prior to the re-tendering exercise.
Thank you Cllr Bowden, It looks like my previous message crossed with your reply.

You seem to be suggesting that no children with mental health issues in Warrington are being supported by Youth Services and that their needs are being adequately served by the CAMHS provision.

Can you confirm that reducing the number of youth work staff and facilities available will have no impact on children with mental health issues or other needs associated with deprivation and/or parental neglect in Warrington?

Can Youthman or anyone working for youth services in the town please confirm this to be the case? if so..and everything's ok..i'll wind my neck in
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Russ Bowden[/bold] wrote: PageA: This Council administration has consistently rejected any savings proposals around the CAMHS provision (which covers childrens mental health). You may have seen the national press article recently which showed that many Councils across the country have cut these services - Warrington is one of the few that has not. That said, the vast majority of the Council's spending goes on statutory services, such as social care and residential placements for children and adults. All services provided by the Council are highly valued, but given the scale of the cuts then it is inevitable that some of this will fall across services that nobody, on principle, would want to cut. The only thing that we can do is drive out every available saving elsewhere first and ensure that we fully understand the issues associated with those services where cuts are made. I make no apologies for raising the same point again - we have had >£60m cut from the Council's annual budget. This means that all Council services will be affected to varying degrees and that is a hard thing to stomach for any elected Member. Grey-man: The Council does not find money for the things that it wants in the budget. Much of what you list is capital funding or else ringfenced grants (like the 20mph signs) and there is a key distinction between them. The important point is that capital funding can not be spent to shore up the revenue budget. It might be inconvenient, but that is the law. One of the key things about the last 2 WBC Budgets has been the focus on generating income. For example, our loans to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) will see hundreds of new homes built in Warrington, offering social and affordable housing that is badly needed, delivering genuine social benefit by revitalising communities and getting the right balance of stock to deal with issues like the 'bedroom tax'. It also happens that this year, we will receive about £3.6m of income from those schemes. That money can go into the Council coffers and be used to balance the budget - without it, we would be having to find yet more cuts. Which would you rather have? Re Stockton Heath CRC, I gave you the answer - no decision was taken prior to the re-tendering exercise.[/p][/quote]Thank you Cllr Bowden, It looks like my previous message crossed with your reply. You seem to be suggesting that no children with mental health issues in Warrington are being supported by Youth Services and that their needs are being adequately served by the CAMHS provision. Can you confirm that reducing the number of youth work staff and facilities available will have no impact on children with mental health issues or other needs associated with deprivation and/or parental neglect in Warrington? Can Youthman or anyone working for youth services in the town please confirm this to be the case? if so..and everything's ok..i'll wind my neck in PageA
  • Score: -7

4:47pm Fri 27 Jun 14

grey_man says...

Page A

That is fair enough. I'll leave this to stay n topic and good luck to you pursuing it.
Page A That is fair enough. I'll leave this to stay n topic and good luck to you pursuing it. grey_man
  • Score: 3

9:40am Sat 28 Jun 14

PageA says...

Cllr Bowden a conversation on a public forum involves more commitment than this on your behalf. I appreciate that you're busy closing children's centres and making youth support staff redundant but i'd appreciate a response to my points if that's ok?
Cllr Bowden a conversation on a public forum involves more commitment than this on your behalf. I appreciate that you're busy closing children's centres and making youth support staff redundant but i'd appreciate a response to my points if that's ok? PageA
  • Score: -1

12:36pm Sat 28 Jun 14

lshelleycat says...

Please please if you have a letter, please sign the woodlands in birchwood is vital to the community! And offers a range of service. In 2002 due to death of a young child, through beating from her own family. The every child matters agenda was released. This states that centres in the community were to be set. Not only helping people in communities but making sure NO child slips through the net again. We have a responsibly to fight for every child. As every child matters, and not just a price that can be cut.
Please please if you have a letter, please sign the woodlands in birchwood is vital to the community! And offers a range of service. In 2002 due to death of a young child, through beating from her own family. The every child matters agenda was released. This states that centres in the community were to be set. Not only helping people in communities but making sure NO child slips through the net again. We have a responsibly to fight for every child. As every child matters, and not just a price that can be cut. lshelleycat
  • Score: 5

12:02pm Mon 30 Jun 14

grey_man says...

PageA

Looks like you've asked the wrong question. You can take the sudden silence how you like, just like you can with Cllr Bowden completely ignoring my point about what was kept under wraps before the local elections.

However, I see from the number of negative scores you've received for politely asking a perfectly reasonable question that the local Labour party has been rallied to diss you. You've touched a nerve there.
PageA Looks like you've asked the wrong question. You can take the sudden silence how you like, just like you can with Cllr Bowden completely ignoring my point about what was kept under wraps before the local elections. However, I see from the number of negative scores you've received for politely asking a perfectly reasonable question that the local Labour party has been rallied to diss you. You've touched a nerve there. grey_man
  • Score: -3

4:50pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Cllr Russ Bowden says...

Page A: I am away in Scotland, with minimal internet access - not quite sure why a 'delay' in responding to a question that I haven't seen warrants sarcastic criticism.

grey_man: I started off trying to correct a common misconception about areas of Council funding. I also offered responses on an open basis, as I have nothing to hide. Perhaps you should read the thread again - I didn't ignore your question, I answered it twice and quite clearly. Whether you choose to accept that answer is beside the point.

Far from touching a nerve, I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss a key issue. I have no idea how the scoring works or why you think it is so important - believe me I have got better things to do than rally anybody to diss someone else and I am sure that they have to.
Page A: I am away in Scotland, with minimal internet access - not quite sure why a 'delay' in responding to a question that I haven't seen warrants sarcastic criticism. grey_man: I started off trying to correct a common misconception about areas of Council funding. I also offered responses on an open basis, as I have nothing to hide. Perhaps you should read the thread again - I didn't ignore your question, I answered it twice and quite clearly. Whether you choose to accept that answer is beside the point. Far from touching a nerve, I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss a key issue. I have no idea how the scoring works or why you think it is so important - believe me I have got better things to do than rally anybody to diss someone else and I am sure that they have to. Cllr Russ Bowden
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Mon 30 Jun 14

grey_man says...

I would accept the answer if it was to the point I made rather than the one you wanted to respond to. An old politician's trick obviously. As some of your fellow councillors have pointed out, this decision was made very early on in the year or even last year. The fact that nobody has been made aware of it, including councillors, evidently has something to do with the local elections especially given the way you are treating the South of Warrington at the moment. Hence why it's been called in.
I would accept the answer if it was to the point I made rather than the one you wanted to respond to. An old politician's trick obviously. As some of your fellow councillors have pointed out, this decision was made very early on in the year or even last year. The fact that nobody has been made aware of it, including councillors, evidently has something to do with the local elections especially given the way you are treating the South of Warrington at the moment. Hence why it's been called in. grey_man
  • Score: 3

7:46am Tue 1 Jul 14

PageA says...

Cllr Russ Bowden wrote:
Page A: I am away in Scotland, with minimal internet access - not quite sure why a 'delay' in responding to a question that I haven't seen warrants sarcastic criticism.

grey_man: I started off trying to correct a common misconception about areas of Council funding. I also offered responses on an open basis, as I have nothing to hide. Perhaps you should read the thread again - I didn't ignore your question, I answered it twice and quite clearly. Whether you choose to accept that answer is beside the point.

Far from touching a nerve, I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss a key issue. I have no idea how the scoring works or why you think it is so important - believe me I have got better things to do than rally anybody to diss someone else and I am sure that they have to.
Not sure that an assault on children's services is a topic is something that a person should 'enjoy' talking about Cllr Russ Bowden. That would make you a pretty cold fish in my opinion. It does explain a few things though. Maybe you're a man who spends a lot of time looking at spreadsheets, knowing the cost of everything and value of nothing. God forbid that have a high-profile case in the near future as children start to slip through your damaged net. Thank you for updating me on your current location, maybe you could have taken that opportunity to answer the points I raised in my previous posts
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Russ Bowden[/bold] wrote: Page A: I am away in Scotland, with minimal internet access - not quite sure why a 'delay' in responding to a question that I haven't seen warrants sarcastic criticism. grey_man: I started off trying to correct a common misconception about areas of Council funding. I also offered responses on an open basis, as I have nothing to hide. Perhaps you should read the thread again - I didn't ignore your question, I answered it twice and quite clearly. Whether you choose to accept that answer is beside the point. Far from touching a nerve, I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss a key issue. I have no idea how the scoring works or why you think it is so important - believe me I have got better things to do than rally anybody to diss someone else and I am sure that they have to.[/p][/quote]Not sure that an assault on children's services is a topic is something that a person should 'enjoy' talking about Cllr Russ Bowden. That would make you a pretty cold fish in my opinion. It does explain a few things though. Maybe you're a man who spends a lot of time looking at spreadsheets, knowing the cost of everything and value of nothing. God forbid that have a high-profile case in the near future as children start to slip through your damaged net. Thank you for updating me on your current location, maybe you could have taken that opportunity to answer the points I raised in my previous posts PageA
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree