Lady, We’re All Done Paying For Your Lifestyle Choices…

A mum says she faces either paying her rent or paying her school transport costs.

“The situation is affecting lots of families on low incomes in rural areas,” said Jade Stickley.

The mum from Stourpaine said Tristan, nine, and Hayden, nine, were previously at Archbishop Wake Primary in Blandford but the family struggled with the cost of bus travel.

She looked for a school closer to home but was told Durweston Primary did not have any spaces.

So the family opted for Milldown Primary School and was given free buses passes because they were a low income family.

But now the free ride has come to an end.

However Dorset County Council has now told her that because they are not in the catchment area for Milldown, the children are no longer entitled to any form of subsided transport for the new term.

Perhaps Ms Stickley might regret having children that she couldn’t afford now, or in the future should her circumstances change?

But no. Someone else should pay, that’s the mantra instilled in the Stickleys of this world, practically from birth.

15 comments for “Lady, We’re All Done Paying For Your Lifestyle Choices…

  1. Henry Crun
    September 8, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Stourpaine to Milldown Primary school is a distance of 2.2 miles. Has this woman never heard of walking? Shouldn’t take longer than half an hour each way.

    CO2 saved and obesity avoided. What’s not to like?

    • September 9, 2011 at 5:48 am

      In the comments, readers claim the roads are too dangerous.

  2. Edward Spalton
    September 8, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    When I attended a village school in the early Fifties quite a few children came from a council home which was about that distance away – and they walked, just as the children from outlying farms did. Nobody expected “free” transport to be laid on – and they got there on time!

    • September 9, 2011 at 5:48 am

      In the Fifties, was there not less road traffic, though?

  3. Martha
    September 8, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    That’s why the kids are getting fat… Even in the 80s my children walked 2miles to school and 2 miles back. I now live next to a junior school and I’ve seen mums from 20 doors down drive a few yards to collect their kids, it’s become ridiculous.

  4. cuffleyburgers
    September 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    I seem to remember when I was a lad there was a bike shed behind which people went to smoke – I believe it could also be used to store bikes in, of the sort which I regularly used, rusty old iron horse that it was, to cycle 3-4 miles or even more to friends’ houses etc.

    Crap old bikes I’m sure are still cheap.

  5. September 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    There’s a mother I know whose child rides her bike to school. She’s six years old. The mum walks beside her, of course and they often do two or three mile walks to get where they’re going. I feel a sluggard when I’m with them because I take the easy way out – a pushbike.

  6. dearieme
    September 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    There are many parts of the countryside around here where you’d be mad to walk – lots of fast traffic and no footpaths.

    • September 9, 2011 at 5:49 am

      Agreed, but as Lord T points out, living there is her choice.

      • John
        September 9, 2011 at 10:25 am

        She probably can’t afford to move.

        • Bessie
          September 9, 2011 at 11:53 pm

          And she probably chose to live in Stourpaine because she could find a cheaper place to rent there than in Blandford. How could she have predicted that (a) the nearest school would turn out to be oversubscribed and her kids would have to go to the next-nearest school, and (b) the council would suddenly decide to withdraw travel funding to the next-nearest school on the grounds that she should have ‘chosen’ the nearest school? It certainly doesn’t make much sense to me.

  7. Lord T
    September 8, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    It is common in our society.

    People choose to live in the country but then insist that milk and post is there at 0730, the broadband is high speed, an ambulance can get there in four minutes and so on.

    Nobody has to put up with any downsides of their decisions and we just get asked to dig deeper. Broadband rollout, school buses, unprofitable bus routes. The list goes on and we are forced to subsidise their choices.

    At least now as they run out of money people may have to consider everything before making a decision on where to live. It’ll end in tears.

  8. Twenty_Rothmans
    September 9, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Can’t her husband drop them off?

    Can’t she ask her boss for a little overtime?

  9. Thornavis.
    September 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    The problem with saying that people who can’t afford it shouldn’t move to the country is that this just turns the place into a ghetto for the more affluent middle class, often retired, this is a process which has been going on for quite a long time and is now almost complete. Combine that with nimbyism ( an inevitable result of present rural demographics ) and the countryside gradually subsides into a dormitory with trees, this is bonkers a horrible misuse of available land, we could solve the housing ‘crisis’ at stroke if we wished. Open the countryside up by allowing low density building, ideally in new villages and you then have more people, more facilities ( including buses ) and a better social mix. There’s another potential advantage too, building houses with proper gardens would actually improve habitats for wildlife and help reverse the desertification of our rural areas, which still looks pretty but which in many places is largely devoid of the wildlife it once had. Another reason for despising all the boneheads who are so against reforming the planning laws, they think they’re saving the countryside but there’s less and less worth saving.
    Sorry all this is a bit off topic but I think it’s all interrelated.

    • September 10, 2011 at 6:28 am

      “The problem with saying that people who can’t afford it shouldn’t move to the country is that this just turns the place into a ghetto for the more affluent middle class…”

      We tolerate other ‘ghettoisation’, even encourage it. What’s so bad about this sort?

Comments are closed.