Council closes care homes (From Daily Echo)

As normal Money before people

Done deed !!
If 30 - 40 year old then probably correct decision, whether we - the uninformed and unconcerned - agree or not.
Would like to think the powers that be know best !!

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

Ah, but behind the money are more people. So this is really "one group of people, over another group of people". It's all well and good chanting this mantra over and over again, but sadly, money is a necessity, and when there isn't enough to pay for something, all the good will in the world won't help. I presume you don't deal with money at all, then. You were quite happy to work for handshakes and pats on the back all those years? After all, why should your employer - people - not come before your salary - money?

As Dasal says, these are old care homes and chances are they would be too expensive to upgrade.

All the residents will be re-homed so where's the issue?

It seems the Council are damned no matter what they do. If they'd kept these homes open people would be accusing them of wasting money on maintenance!

The council aren't uncaring. They simply are obliged to get the best value for money that they can.

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone.

Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone.

Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

and why the caps 'M' for money?

Money is a thing - it is not an evil, living entity.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

Ah, but behind the money are more people. So this is really "one group of people, over another group of people". It's all well and good chanting this mantra over and over again, but sadly, money is a necessity, and when there isn't enough to pay for something, all the good will in the world won't help. I presume you don't deal with money at all, then. You were quite happy to work for handshakes and pats on the back all those years? After all, why should your employer - people - not come before your salary - money?

What do you know about chanting mantras over and over again?Its not something to scoff about you know.

bigfella777 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

Ah, but behind the money are more people. So this is really "one group of people, over another group of people". It's all well and good chanting this mantra over and over again, but sadly, money is a necessity, and when there isn't enough to pay for something, all the good will in the world won't help. I presume you don't deal with money at all, then. You were quite happy to work for handshakes and pats on the back all those years? After all, why should your employer - people - not come before your salary - money?

What do you know about chanting mantras over and over again?Its not something to scoff about you know.

The people behind the money is few in number and only care about one thing, and that is how to make the biggest profit going how can they make more.
Money is not being use as a tool like it should be.
They don't care if it ends up costing the tax payer more they only see the £ till signs and not people, it a case now days how can we get more tax payers money from the state and into private hands where it will never been seen again.

davehills wrote:
As Dasal says, these are old care homes and chances are they would be too expensive to upgrade.

All the residents will be re-homed so where's the issue?

It seems the Council are damned no matter what they do. If they'd kept these homes open people would be accusing them of wasting money on maintenance!

The council aren't uncaring. They simply are obliged to get the best value for money that they can.

As we have seen here in southampton all ready but the council still want to carry on in the same direction, it ends up costing more to the tax payer to let the private sector have it. and when they go bust those OAPs have nothing, no even the state can house them because they have closed them down and sold off.
Doing what they are doing is only a way to get state tax money into private hands.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone.

Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

the big picture is money is a tool to be used, and not for pofiteering.

southy wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

Ah, but behind the money are more people. So this is really "one group of people, over another group of people". It's all well and good chanting this mantra over and over again, but sadly, money is a necessity, and when there isn't enough to pay for something, all the good will in the world won't help. I presume you don't deal with money at all, then. You were quite happy to work for handshakes and pats on the back all those years? After all, why should your employer - people - not come before your salary - money?

What do you know about chanting mantras over and over again?Its not something to scoff about you know.

The people behind the money is few in number and only care about one thing, and that is how to make the biggest profit going how can they make more.
Money is not being use as a tool like it should be.
They don't care if it ends up costing the tax payer more they only see the £ till signs and not people, it a case now days how can we get more tax payers money from the state and into private hands where it will never been seen again.

The people behind the money is the tax payer, southy.

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone.

Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

the big picture is money is a tool to be used, and not for pofiteering.

I agree. But what's that got to do with this story?

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone.

Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

So what do you suggest we do with elderly an vulnerable people who cannot be cared for by theri families, if indeed they have one. Euthanasia?
If we are supposed to live in a civilised society we need to provide these people with proper care by professional staff. It could be you one day!

Maine Lobster wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone.

Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

So what do you suggest we do with elderly an vulnerable people who cannot be cared for by theri families, if indeed they have one. Euthanasia?
If we are supposed to live in a civilised society we need to provide these people with proper care by professional staff. It could be you one day!

Just to clarify: specific care homes are being closed, because the buildings are unsuitable. The residents will still be cared for. It's not like the care itself is being cut here.

Georgem wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote: As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone. Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

So what do you suggest we do with elderly an vulnerable people who cannot be cared for by theri families, if indeed they have one. Euthanasia? If we are supposed to live in a civilised society we need to provide these people with proper care by professional staff. It could be you one day!

Just to clarify: specific care homes are being closed, because the buildings are unsuitable. The residents will still be cared for. It's not like the care itself is being cut here.

Luckily, a few of us understand that Georgem.
I think if southy had his way, these places would still be in existence in another 30 years, regardless of their suitability.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

Ah, but behind the money are more people. So this is really "one group of people, over another group of people". It's all well and good chanting this mantra over and over again, but sadly, money is a necessity, and when there isn't enough to pay for something, all the good will in the world won't help. I presume you don't deal with money at all, then. You were quite happy to work for handshakes and pats on the back all those years? After all, why should your employer - people - not come before your salary - money?

Yes money is "necessity" but how nations spending priorities are managed is also important.

Should resources be wasted on war after war and keep on promoting case for even more wars, on aircraft carriers without even planes, in tax concessions to super rich, bailing out even bent bankers and Eurozone or slush funds packaged under seductive headings of foreign aid etc etc OR spent on providing public services, including homes like Hampshire has closed.

County Council and other local authorities have genuine problems with central government. It has been going on for many years.

Rather than taking on powerfull in London local authorities have been picking upon vulnerable people.

This in my view is immoral.

I think Southy was trying to make that point, which I and few others will support. Hope he won't be doing his usual 'Southy' again by posting pure fiction.

How can it be right to keep unelected head of state The Queen in centuries old buildings if 30 to 40 years old properties are thought to be unsuitable as excuse for closing these homes? If that is argued then monarchist and royalists should admit to hypocrisy of pretending to be fans of old lady but keeping her in centuries old buildings.

Considering media has exposed many shameful scandals of privately run homes, why keep on creating situations that will make even more people dependent upon greedy sharks?

Maine Lobster wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone.

Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

So what do you suggest we do with elderly an vulnerable people who cannot be cared for by theri families, if indeed they have one. Euthanasia?
If we are supposed to live in a civilised society we need to provide these people with proper care by professional staff. It could be you one day!

Yes we are supposed to be what you call "civilised society" BUT minus humanity.

Hardly surprising when place is dominated by fans of out of touch arrogant posh people. Tory Mitchell being the latest example. Should have been arrested for abusing police, but one law is for us and other for them.

In a way by closing care homes Hampshire is doing the same in slightly different way.

I don't get the problem? There's more care homes?

I wonder how many residents will be moved to the many new private care facilities in Hampshire? Those many shiny new profit driven private care homes that local authorities have been allowing developers replace local pubs etc with! More privatisation by the back door I suspect rather than unsuitability! Or were HCC owned care homes deliberately neglected in anticipation of these private homes coming on stream?

TOO EXPENSIVE TO REPAIR? BS - Our parliamentarians will soon benefit from a £1bn refurbishment of their workplace - effing workplace - not residential. Schools, NHS, children, elderly, the homeless, sick, disabled, unemployed and not forgetting the 'plebs' who it seems can all go to hell in a handcart!!

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

Ah, but behind the money are more people. So this is really "one group of people, over another group of people". It's all well and good chanting this mantra over and over again, but sadly, money is a necessity, and when there isn't enough to pay for something, all the good will in the world won't help. I presume you don't deal with money at all, then. You were quite happy to work for handshakes and pats on the back all those years? After all, why should your employer - people - not come before your salary - money?

Yes money is "necessity" but how nations spending priorities are managed is also important.

Should resources be wasted on war after war and keep on promoting case for even more wars, on aircraft carriers without even planes, in tax concessions to super rich, bailing out even bent bankers and Eurozone or slush funds packaged under seductive headings of foreign aid etc etc OR spent on providing public services, including homes like Hampshire has closed.

County Council and other local authorities have genuine problems with central government. It has been going on for many years.

Rather than taking on powerfull in London local authorities have been picking upon vulnerable people.

This in my view is immoral.

I think Southy was trying to make that point, which I and few others will support. Hope he won't be doing his usual 'Southy' again by posting pure fiction.

How can it be right to keep unelected head of state The Queen in centuries old buildings if 30 to 40 years old properties are thought to be unsuitable as excuse for closing these homes? If that is argued then monarchist and royalists should admit to hypocrisy of pretending to be fans of old lady but keeping her in centuries old buildings.

Considering media has exposed many shameful scandals of privately run homes, why keep on creating situations that will make even more people dependent upon greedy sharks?

We're talking about a couple of care homes being closed down as no longer fit for purpose. What this has to do with endless wars is a mystery to me!

I do agree, that public spending is a concern. But it has to be accepted that some decisions will be made that will be unpleasant. The southys of this world think that every time things don't work out the way they think they ought to, it's down to some massive capitalist conspiracy to rob the common man of his every last penny.

As for your 'centuries old buildings' argument, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're playing devils advocate there, because that's an awfully limp straw man if you're not. Buildings do not automatically become unusable after a certain age. THESE buildings, specifically, have been deemed too expensive to be used as care homes.

I imagine the closure of these Care Homes will be the first of many over the next decade as councils rationalise by use of "care in the community". I`ve experienced this care first hand with my mum who had dementia. It involved a private company being paid handsomely by the council for providing a service that was nothing short of disgraceful. Would you leave medication for someone with dementia to take themselves? The company charged with assisting my mother did. The staff appeared to be totally incompetent- not surprising as they were paid barely above minimum wage and had to pay their own transport costs. Never going to attract a high calibre of worker is it?

This is the reality. This is what is going to be happening over and over again in the future as council's slash spending on adult social care.

The solution. Simple. Lets all pay more council tax. I`d rather pay extra now then lose my house in 50 years time as its the only way to pay for my care.

Good luck with higher taxes! I'm in no doubt you'll get your wish pretty soon. I for one will be looking for lower taxes if those taxes no longer provide public services! Makes sense to me, won't hold out a lot of hope though.

In fairness Southy did not throw in capitalist conspires in his first comment. But I have questioned values of our society.

I mentioned waste on wars and few more items because governments under all parties have been using shortage of money for under funding councils. So my argument, stop that waste, even part of those savingings if given to local authorities will solve their financial problems.

As former member of Hampshire CC II have learnt with experience how pen pushers can manufacture all kinds of arguments first to close places and then if it suits them start saying the opposite.

At one time pen pushers even convinced a clever chief constable why Victoria House near Netley should be demolished. Guess what few months later same lot wanted to turn it into a great facility for the police.

They kept on telling me at that time oldest temporary school building in Bitterene Manor was acceptable and were fully backed by Tory establishment. Till I proved them otherwise and questioned even it's safety. Strangely same pen pushers with egg in their faces chaged tunes and made a case for me, that's how we got brand new school built.

With those kinds of experiences you can hardly blame me for not having blind faith in pen pushers.

chunky_lover wrote:
I don't get the problem? There's more care homes?

... and lots of Don't Care homes, the cheap alternative.

G-man1 wrote:
I imagine the closure of these Care Homes will be the first of many over the next decade as councils rationalise by use of "care in the community". I`ve experienced this care first hand with my mum who had dementia. It involved a private company being paid handsomely by the council for providing a service that was nothing short of disgraceful. Would you leave medication for someone with dementia to take themselves? The company charged with assisting my mother did. The staff appeared to be totally incompetent- not surprising as they were paid barely above minimum wage and had to pay their own transport costs. Never going to attract a high calibre of worker is it?

This is the reality. This is what is going to be happening over and over again in the future as council's slash spending on adult social care.

The solution. Simple. Lets all pay more council tax. I`d rather pay extra now then lose my house in 50 years time as its the only way to pay for my care.

I feel sorry for how your mother has been treated.

In 1980s when establishment started promoting seductive sounding 'care in community' some of us did warn not only against greedy sharks who could get into this business for minting money, but we also warned that care in community while on the face of it could be a good idea without sufficient finance back up resources will not be sufficient, will also lack quality.

Sadly your loved ones case is not rare.

Maine Lobster wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone.

Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

So what do you suggest we do with elderly an vulnerable people who cannot be cared for by theri families, if indeed they have one. Euthanasia?
If we are supposed to live in a civilised society we need to provide these people with proper care by professional staff. It could be you one day!

Whoa, hang on, my Great Grandmother spent her last 3 years in Cornerways so I do know something about the place.

The staff were great and yes, she didn't want to be there but being very frail and almost blind she required 24/7 care.
So I had numerous visits to the building in question, it's falling apart and therefore I would consider it an act of cruelty really to keep it open. As was mentioned, 'not fit for purpose'. I've been there and agree, have you? 'Course you haven't.

To bring Euthanasia into is childish and crass to say the least, I certainly never considered euthinasing my Great Grandmother, a really stupid thing to say.

If friendships have been made between residents at Cornerways then it is sad, I hope they can put people together who they feel comfortable with. They aren't being turfed out on the street are they?

Shame on you really.

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
As normal Money before people

It's harsh, but as usual you have completely missed the big picture. If there is no money, then you can't help anyone.

Sounds simplistic but how can I be more simplistic than your good self?

the big picture is money is a tool to be used, and not for pofiteering.

Profiteering?

We don't know that but what I find more distasteful is the opportunism of some Union numpty who used the closing for political ends while pretending to give two hoots for the residents.

That I do find quite abhorrent.