Report advises end to universal 15 hours free childcare

Of course it is different,'hypocritical' describes behaviour while
'hard and bitter' describes the person; and do not ignore the ageist follow up mocking GP as being old and out of touch and even invoking the stereotype of a pre WW2 northerner in clogs. Not funny coming from one gran to another (if that is what Anya is!)

And then there is the question of degree. Accusations of taking a hypocrisy are par for the course in politcal argument but calling someone 'hard' and 'bitter' crosses a line into abuse. Nasty stuff.

So Mair when you say other posters are hypocritical, or accuse Anya of 'spitting bile' you are merely criticising their behaviour.
But when Anya observes that GP sounds hard and bitter, that is a personal attack?
How does that work?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Quote:
07/02/2017 21:28 Mair
"Its amusing to see leftist posters...... hypocritically demanding it be spent on the better off, but also losing their tempers and making catty remarks"

Mair presumably this doesn't count as a personal remark, or spitting bile, because you didn't actually have the courage to name the poster(s) it was directed at?

Really Mair ? You think that's 'spitting bile'?

I really think you ought to sit back and chill. There's not one word of my post which is rude and personal.... or it would be deleted by HQ. I'm not the one using words like 'spitting' (yuk!) or 'bile' (even yukier).

Saying someone has a 'hard attitude' or they seem bitter is hardly in your league

Pot black?

You have a very hard attitude to today's young parents Grannypiper
You seem very bitter and ought (sic) of touch with the hard reality of bringing up children in this day and age

Anya a very rude and personal attack on GP .

Can't you talk about the issues without spitting bile?

No it hasn't .

Certainly not enough for GP to us her own long-ago experiences of hardship and deprivation to back up her opnions in the 21st century. But then some people just love to play the 'they've never had it so good' card and the 'when I were a lass life was hard'.....just waiting for having to walk 5 miles to school wearing clogs

I don't think the 15 hours free childcare's been going that long Anya!

I was thinking she was a pupil in a class of 48 Jane

According to her post this morning she had '48 in my class' - I was assuming she was the teacher Anya!

Is GP an ex-teacher?

So stop slagging off hard working parents, or at least tarring them all with the same brush in almost every post, if you're so aware of their struggles. You come across as hard and bitter even if you don't mean to.

grannypiper ^ i dont think it is fair that some couples work really hard and fore go having children because they cant afford them but have to pay for couples who do have them.^
Because we live in a society.
Because one day those children will become the doctors, nurses, social workers, cleaners, shop workers or do one of the many other jobs which the childless couple need access too.
And because a well educated society is better for everyone.
Surely as an ex-teacher you believe that?

Anya i never said they had full pay leave, but if you check gov.uk you will find you can have additional leave to take you to 52 weeks. And yes you are right not all parents get child benefit, if they earn over £50,000 as a single parent they dont get it.Adults make choices so why should everyone else pay for their choices. I wouldnt say i was out of touch, i have a 30 year old daughter who is married with 2 children, she works 3 jobs just to pay the £850 a month rent on a 2 bed flat, her husband works full time also, they have 1 day a week together and dont complain or expect the world to hold their hand.
Anya you say i am hard and bitter ( dont know what i have to be bitter about) i am not at all, i know how hard it is to pay the rent, mortgage etc but i dont think it is fair that some couples work really hard and fore go having children because they cant afford them but have to pay for couples who do have them.There is a bottom to the pot

Welshwife That is absolutely spot on, your post has nailed the whole issue.

Agree with Anya I feel sorry for most young parents these days. It usually requires 2 wages just to get a mortgage never mind continue to pay it whilst bringing up children. My DDiL had the bare minimum maternity leave/pay when she had my DGC. In fact she had to go back after only 6 weeks as her pay dropped so much. Mind you I appreciate that some in the public sector seem to have never ending maternity leave . My Grandsons teacher for one.

Thank you both for keeping me right though

Yes I realize that Iam64 and maddy I meant to say where was the money going to come from to increase the 15 hours to 30?

You have a very hard attitude to today's young parents Grannypiper and seem to think they free-load on the state and their own parents. Forgive me for questioning the accuracy of your post, but parents these days most definitely do not have 'a lot of financial pressures taken away'. It takes two wages the days just to pay the mortgage.

No-one has 52,weeks maternity leave on full pay either and not all parents get child benefit and child tax credits.

You seem very bitter and ought of touch with the hard reality of bringing up children in this day and age.

Iam64 it is not a few who use the 15 hours free childcare, parents of every child in the land are entitled to use it. I had 48 children a day in my class and every household earned a good wage (Armed forces) and had cheap housing (M.Q's) and every family claimed the free 15 hours. Parents these days have a lot of the financial pressure taken away, they have up to 52 weeks paid maternity/paternity leave, child benefit, child tax credits, 15 hours free childcare and their child will be fed for free at school until they are 7 and they ones that don't work get even more.So parents dont have to pay in full for their children.

Is this a rumour or a reality. I can see no link to anything concrete on here so how are we supposed to be able to verify it?

gillybob, as maddyone says, nursery education is already available for 3 year olds. My children now in their early 30's benefitted from half days at the nursery school within the primary school they went on to attend. My young grandsons will have their names added when they reach the age of two, to the nursery school within the primary school they will attend.
I know we live in an age when research and experts are viewed with disdain by some but the research about early years education all points to the benefits for all children. People have the choice of sending their children to fee paying nursery schools attached the the fee paying primary schools they hope their children will be accepted by. I preferred my children to go to local schools.

For all children to go to some form of structured nursery environment regularly will only benefit everyone. 15 hours will give a half day every school day and pay all sorts of dividends later. In a reception class of four year olds it is easy to spot those who have not been to any form of nursery. It may well seem to outsiders that they don't do much but in fact they learn a lot about co-operation and have an idea how to behave and what is expected of them within a classroom.
My own feeling is that we need to put more resources (mainly teachers) into the education of young children rather than the older level. Wales are going to implement class sizes of no more than 25 in Infant schools - a great step forward.The little ones need to learn so many new skills, lack of which will impact for a number of years. If they can read and comprehend much of what they are reading, form letters and numbers correctly and write a few sentences of correct English, and do some maths by the time they leave the Infants school they have a huge advantage. Those who have not grasped the concept of reading are of course the most disadvantaged as they are handicapped in almost every other subject. Infant schools normally have the best resources for making sure that reading skills are at an acceptable level.
It is the children from disadvantaged backgrounds who will benefit the most from this early years education and being disadvantaged can take many forms. Those from financially well off homes but who fail to be nurtured are just as much disadvantaged as those from poorer homes where there may be lack of knowledge or time. The attitude of the mother has a lot to do with this. The Headmaster of my grammar school always said that when you educated a boy you educated a person - when you educated a girl you educated a family.

It already exists, 15 free hours of nursery education is already provided for all three year olds, and in my opinion that should continue. Why on earth would we remove nursery education from three year olds when we provide free education for older children? The early years are the most important in terms of education, I speak as a retired teacher, and my specialism was the Early Years. I have no problem with providing free education for up to 30 hours for poorer/needy families, but I find the idea of removing free education for three year olds who do not fit into this group appalling. Should we also remove free education from 4-16 year olds too? Of course not!