Mental health specialist in every school....

There is rather insufficient evidence to draw such conclusions as the child "living in a haze of cannabis" Jalima1108. The results obtained are primarily the result of the increasing use of stronger versions of cannabis (skunk). But there is no evidence at all to support the assertion that decriminalising it would result in more use of the drug. It's nothing like the speeding comparison unless you have some roads that have a speed limit of 50, some of 20 and some of 30 and some where driving is forbidden altogether, with nothing to differentiate the roads apart from historic practice.
As I said before decriminalising would at least enable users with problems to seek help earlier. Alcohol is a much more physically damaging drug but is completely legal. Addiction to anything is an illness and one that should be treated properly and not result in imprisonment and punishment simply because the addictive substance is unacceptable to society at the time.

Living not liking !

Yes, a toddler could drink an alcoholic drink left carelessly around but living in a haze of cannabis could cause more long-term problems just as liking in a haze of cigarette smoke could cause lung problems in young children.
Psychoses - schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
There is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age, such as around the age of 15, have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder
These studies also show that the risk is dose-related. In other words, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop a psychotic illness.

Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? It is thought that this has something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.

I'm no saying that alcohol will not produce long-term effects but the argument is rather like the one produced to increase speed limits on motorways to 80 mph - no-one sticks to 70 mph so why not increase the speed limit anyway?

A glass which left on a coffee table can easily be picked up and drunk by any toddler- not difficult at all-, just as can any other drug, prescribed, legal or illegal they re all dangerous. The drug laws need looking at and amending. I don't understand why you find cannabis plants so much more dangerous than alcohol.

I don't think there should be a counsellor in every school because of costs and expertise but I do think there should be a 'track' to mental health specialists via the school if this is thought necessary. However I've found that it's possible to get into the 'system' from joint efforts of GP and school to refer but then it's a waiting game. So I don't believe there's an easy answer to this.

The thing about alcohol trisher is that it is contained in a glass or a bottle; yes, I know children can get hold of it and drink it but it is quite difficult for toddlers and babies to do so. I know about foetal alcohol syndrome too before anyone mentions that.

So called 'legal highs' are a big problem too. Underneath it all though, why do people want/need to take something to affect their mental processes? Is life so awful that some form of chemical respite is desirable? Personally I think peer pressure is a major factor and the need to appear 'cool'. That's not just kids though -I've been on plenty of nights out when drinking almost seems competitive. The next day everyone is showing off about how bad their hangover is. Not me though of course. It just wasn't worth it .

Jalima1108 many children also live in houses where alcohol is on display and used. People die and are ill because of alcohol, but it is legal. Cannabis could be much more easily controlled if it was legal and the effects of using it would not be hidden because the user is afraid they will be prosecuted if they seek help.

How many of today's youngsters suffer mental health problems because they take drugs; some classified, some 'legal' drugs?

Now the Lib Dems have said in their manifesto that they would legalise cannabis (at present a Class B drug again after reclassification from temporary downgrading to Class C several years ago). This would not be available to under-18s but then tobacco is not supposed to be sold to under 16s.

The party would allow licensed shops to sell the drug to over-18s, let people grow cannabis at home and introduce small "cannabis social clubs".

We could see an increase in mental health problems amongst school-age children if cannabis is legalised. The thought of cannabis being grown in many homes where toddlers and small children live is quite horrifying too.

I know the argument is that the content could be controlled but the more cynical view is that it would save money trying to fight the illegal distribution of cannabis and bring in tax revenue for a Lib Dem government.

Is their plan to spend the proposed £1bn revenue on better mental health programmes in schools?

Contact the Local Government Ombudsman about transport! It's the law that the LA must provide transport, if the school is more than three miles away and is the nearest with places. The LA has no case to answer.

Why didn't you apply to a school where your DGD would know children from primary school?

gillybob It is the LAW that the LA must pay for school transport. You need to work at accepting the decision, because it's unlikely to change. If this is a popular school, you will be one of many and inconvenience of school transport has never been a criteria for a successful appeal.

The admissions criteria have been applied correctly and you don't have a strong case.

All you can do is state your intention to remain on the waiting list and hope that somebody leaves. You would then stand a good chance, because you live so close to the school.

I've been reading up on the proposals. The idea is to "support" schools with training for existing staff (ie a couple of short courses). There is no extra funding for real psychiatric help, so waiting lists for CAMHS will remain.

This is unacceptable and won't make much difference, because some big schools already employ counsellors, but it will tick boxes.

We had the 11 + but I don't remember any pressure to pass it. As it happens my younger sister and I both did, but my older sister did not. She was taught to type and ended up as a legal secretary earning as much, or more than my younger sister and I.

I think our society has got a lot wrong - pressure to buy a house, which in turn means mothers need to work, emphasis on consumerism - all encouraged by government. I hope when robots take over we might go back to stay at home parents or at least one, if not two, part time ones, and more family joint activities that do not cost the earth, walking, or even helping in the community with something. We can no longer rely on the government to provide everything for everyone. But we would have to solve the housing problem first - maybe look at some of the innovative cheap options around. Life will be hard for the next generation, the answers are out there but it will not be an easy path.

Sorry, didn't mean that to come across rude (as it might have) thatbags My DDiL works full time shift work. My DS is hopeless at this sort of thing. That's it really.

Just because I am thatbags really to be honest.

Why are you doing the fighting over your grand-daughter's school placement, gillybob? Rather than her parents, I mean.

Apologies for "going off on one" there. Just ignore me

Didn't mean to try and hijack the thread for my own issues.

Aaaaaah one rule for one eh Lillie?

It would have been fantastic if the ring tone had been particularly funny or naff!

Mobile phones - I have a friend who is Headteacher at a big secondary school. Pupils' phones are confiscated if they are used in school. One day he was doing assembly - 1200 kids and staff - when HIS OWN mobile rang in his pocket, (daughter calling!). He had to think swiftly on his feet, held up the phone and said very calmly, "Remind me next time I confiscate a phone to switch it off first." Everyone nodded! [grin}

I have tried unsuccessfully to get them onside daphne. They now pass me to one particular person when I telephone (she knows the case inside out and was even at the primary school appeal we lost) She is a real nasty piece of work. Nothing else I can say really.

No daphnedill she will not know anyone at all going to the school the LEA have allocated to her. She will be travelling alone too.

I have tried going down the "transport" route for the 3 children but always managed to get fobbed off. First they said that they would need to be special needs to qualify then, when I presented them with evidence to the contrary, they said that they needed to check the distances as per their own GIS system and they would get back to us (they didn't trust my source of information).They didn't. Then when I proved that they did qualify on distance,they knew nothing about it, then they said the best they could do was to provide free bus passes (we refused) now we are back to the beginning and eldest DGD being sent to a school in the opposite direction to her younger siblings primary.

I can't help but feel bitter towards the LEA staff because they know the situation. They know how difficult it is for the children, they know they are sometimes late for school as the buses don't always turn up, they know that the attendance officer has become involved (because they were late 3 times in one month) They are nasty and patronising on the phone, I am now on first name terms with them) and they have refused a face to face meeting. When I ask their advice (or what they would do) they say that its not their problem they have fulfilled their duty by providing a school place. Quite frankly they don't give a damn.

You'd be better off trying to get them on your side. They won't be happy to have to pay for school transport and might try and put pressure on the school to take your DGD.

That's what happened with my own son. The LA was paying £100pw for a taxi to get him to school, because the school I could see from my bedroom window was full. After a term, the school miraculously "found" a place for him. The school had pressure from the LA and Local Government Ombudsman.

gillybob Please try not to feel so bitter about LA staff. They have no control over the situation.

I agree with you thatbags. I don't know if there has been a rise in mental health issues.

I certainly remember two girls in my year group (of about 90 girls) who had mental health issues. One was anorexic (although I don't think I'd ever heard the word) and the other had a lot of time off and eventually just left. With hindsight, she was probably very depressed or had other issues she didn't talk about. It was a highly pressurised school. Most of us went to university and I knew of a number of girls who didn't complete their first year and/or had a number of issues, but we just didn't talk about them.