33 Million of Cost/Savings Per Annum

[humptygrumpty]

It was only recently that they community skip provision was abolished , saving £70,000 per year , even more recently I saw an advert in the shetland times , sic looking for a lecturer in nordic buisness studies....probably on a salary of at least half what the skips cost !!

 

What in gods name do we need that for ? If a few , and I do mean a few want to study this then like many other qualifications , why dont they go to university and study it ?

 

This is another perfect example of total waste of resources when cut backs on services that all benefit from are being closed or taken away in one form or other.

 

Elsewhere I read that even if the social care was privatised then the council as service provider would have to be the monitering body , so no job losses there again !!

 

Heard recently that the new admin HQ for the sic was just having the finishing touches put to it when along came some bright spark and instructed the workforce that practically all the internals had to be removed and redone.....to make space for more offices.......sam as dey didna hae enough offices tae do very little in.....

[unlinkedstudent]

What utter tosh, SP. You might as well say that there should be no private companies of any sort in Shetland. Private care provider going bankrupt? Hate to break it to ya but the way the SIC is going, they'll be the bankrupt ones.

 

And how ageist do you want to be? Very, apparently. I've met plenty of 80, 85, 90; hell even 95 year olds who still have their wits about them. Just because somebody needs a hand in the home doesn't immediately mean that they are suffering from dementia - we're living longer and many of the older generation certainly do have their wits about them. Granted, some do suffer from dementia and the like but why tarnish a whole generation with the same brush?

 

And yes, many pensioners do pay and go private because, as I stated earlier - it costs them less for the SAME carer that they would have if bought via their Local Authority.

 

So are you saying that in an ideal world all social care in the home would be free regardless of ability to pay? We ain't living in an ideal world. And precisely what assets would a Local Authority be handing over if all a Local Authority did was provide service users with a list as to where the care could be purchased from? Not all care has to be provided by a Local Authority - which bit of that do you not understand?

[shetlandpeat]

Again missing the point. Typical though because I say there should be no profit in social care you argue with this sort of diatribe. Frankly speaking you are talking out of your hoop when it comes to care for vulnerable folk. As for who is responsible for the level of care, it remains with the council. Again, you fail to answer and wash over with an answer I would expect from the hearse of a donkey. Read what is being written and answer. Councils will mot go bust, more bull from the Tory stigma thought tank. They will be underwritten by Gov. You call me ageist yet the party you support brings in ageist policies, another lame piece of nonsense, trying to win your statements by this sort of drivel does not convince. More rubbish. Why are you still talking about going private when we are talking about the privatisation of social care. If folk have the money to afford private, it is their choice. Name me a private social care company on Shetland. Jive talking. To also infer that folk should not pay even if they have the means when it is not the case is a false statement. There has never been a problem with that. More ukip style of debate seems to come from ure end.

[shetlandpeat]

Again missing the point. Typical though because I say there should be no profit in social care you argue with this sort of diatribe. Frankly speaking you are talking out of your hoop when it comes to care for vulnerable folk. As for who is responsible for the level of care, it remains with the council. Again, you fail to answer and wash over with an answer I would expect from the hearse of a donkey. Read what is being written and answer. Councils will mot go bust, more bull from the Tory stigma thought tank. They will be underwritten by Gov. You call me ageist yet the party you support brings in ageist policies, another lame piece of nonsense, trying to win your statements by this sort of drivel does not convince. More rubbish. Why are you still talking about going private when we are talking about the privatisation of social care. If folk have the money to afford private, it is their choice. Name me a private social care company on Shetland. Jive talking. To also infer that folk should not pay even if they have the means when it is not the case is a false statement. There has never been a problem with that. More ukip style of debate seems to come from ure end.

[Ghostrider]

No Peat, Councils who are incompetent enough to go bust aren't underwritten by the Government, the Government sends in a "hit squad" to run the council and make the books balance. If that were to happen the cuts would really bite hard, and there would be no way of influencing where and to what extent they fell, the bean counters would simply do their thing as best they saw fit, as they answer to nobody but the Government who sent them in to do one job, clear up the mess ASAP.

 

The buck for the greatest part for the current fiasco lies with previous successive administrations at both national and local level. Social Care is supposed to be a safety net, not a right on demand. Those running it from the top down regardless of political leaning, or the total lack of any, have, if not encouraged then failed to discourage a culture of entitlement where want, like and demand = need and eligbility.

 

There are unfortunately numerous individuals out there who through health issue and/or lack of family support do really need caring for, and I have no issue whatsoever with them getting a level of such at taxpayer's expense to make their lives as reasonably comfortable as possible comparable to their counterparts who do not have such issues. What I do baulk at it is folk who have reached a certain age claiming off the taxpayer things they don't really need. Those that have cottoned on must really think they're in clover, the minute you hit state retirement age you can get someone to come in to do your housework, laundry, shopping etc and get food delivered to your door ready to eat, all either for gratis or heavily subsidised. And if you can swing it, you can go and stay someplace where there's staff 24/7/365 at your beck and call, you get pretty much everything done for you, and you never have to worry about mundane things like house maintenance/repairs etc and everything that goes with it ever again.

 

Why should we, the taxpayer, fund the lifestyles of folk who are still capable or doing their own thing and looking after themselves, just because they've been smart enough to see they don't have to if they tell the right stories and put on the right show to the right people. Folk don't stop being crafty and scamming the system when they become OAP's, they get better at it, they have a lifetime's experience to draw upon. These services should be restricted to those who really do need them, its counterproductive when they are over-subscribed due to folk using them just because they can and would be no worse off without them. Don't tell me it doesn't happen either, as long as 40 years ago people of an age to be considered for a home help and/or meals on wheels were being gently "pressurised" to ge one, as it would help justify keeping someone or other employed and/or help ensure the service kept going if there was a greater "need". Likewise, when a relative reached pension age 8 years ago, while applying for their pension they were given a significant list of things like home helps and meals on wheels etc, and asked which of them they wanted to claim as they were now eligible for them.....

 

We are now having to foot an enormous bill as a result of decades of conditioning which sees many who when they reach retirement considering Social Care of the elderly as their right on demand, rather than it be seen as a last resort safety net, just in the same way as we now have a culture of school leavers who see a house of their own as a right on demand, which we too are having to pay for.

 

Everybody is entitled to a reasonable standard of life, but OAPs and by extension their immediate family where appropriate, should be heavily encouraged to take as much responsibility as they possibly can to ensure that reasonable standard for each individual is their own responsibility, not the state's. The nanny state never had much to reommend it, and it has encouraged the current culture of those in the middle being expected to pay the bill for handing everything on a plate to everyone else's kids, and covering a chunk of the costs of all OAP's - the middle can only be squeezed so much then it collapses. The pendulum needs to start swinging the other way, resources need to be concentrated on those with real need and who would eke out a pitiful existence or not survive long term without it, and the free rides just because of the date on a birth certificate, at both ends of life brought to an end.

[paulb]

ghost with all due respect your speaking billocks. there are no healthy older persons getting home care. however there are plenty of frail elderly that are not getting an adequate service.

 

ghost go and visit one of our care centres and see for yourself. there are not loads of fit elderly in them. in fact the care centres are becoming more like nursing homes than they have ever been.

 

lets also remember the loudest voices in the paper having digs at the past council were members of those councils.

 

now the last bit of your post is offensive to many in need of the care. to be honest it really sounds more like unlinks views.

 

personally you know what it like to be sick and let down by the caring services. yet you now wish that on our most vulnerable adults.

 

you go on about their family caring for their relatives and a lot do. however there are many reasons why that is not always the best option.

 

all these unpaid careers are going to need support do you know how damaging caring for a loved one is for the careers. even the nhs and social services know this.

 

when you go on about their families i picture the partners of some of the frail elders they really have quite a horrible time of it. even with a maximum care package its a maximum of 4 hours a day. now imagine you have to care for a spouse with a serious dementia issue 20 hours night and day none stop. please think before you want those 4 hours removing.

 

as a tax payer im quite happy for my money to be spent on them. i know they needed it.

[CHUCK NORR1S]

Personally I think SP and paulb are on the money here. You start getting in private companies etc, standards drop due to cost cutting and stripping of the service which leads to an unhappy work force.

 

Ultimately the care/support given will be regulated by the care commission but the service provided on a whole will undoubtedly be poorer which will lead to an unhappy workforce who won't pay that extra bit of attention to a customers health and wellbeing, abuse will start to creep in, you can see that happening south at the moment with cost cutting, It's a crying shame but privatising or getting in private companies to deliver care packages on a wider scale is not healthy in my view.

 

You don't have to look very far to see this happening at the moment - Serco/Northlink!!!

[CHUCK NORR1S]

 

You don't have to look very far to see this happening at the moment - Serco/Northlink!!!

 

Maybe that's not a good comparison but I'm sure you get where I'm coming from, have a good weekend people................and play nice x

[owre-weel]

Again missing the point. Again, you fail to answer and wash over with an answer I would expect from the hearse of a donkey. Read what is being written and answer.

 

ha ha ha ha! I nearly fell of my chair when I read the above

 

Sorry Pete but that coming from you, just made me laugh out loud

[shetlandpeat]

I am glad I gave you a laff, it is however the truth. Of course we always forget that if we if we can pick holes it negates responding to the topic and as ever diverts. We forget how perfect you can be.

[unlinkedstudent]

ghost with all due respect your speaking billocks. there are no healthy older persons getting home care. however there are plenty of frail elderly that are not getting an adequate service.

 

ghost go and visit one of our care centres and see for yourself. there are not loads of fit elderly in them. in fact the care centres are becoming more like nursing homes than they have ever been.

 

Crumbs, I nearly fell off my chair laughing here too - I've met several people in Shetland who have a home help; some were firstly advised they needed one after an operation - convos tend to go like this "Well, they said I could have someone to help with housework and shopping for a few weeks ... that was six years ago and TBH, I don't really need them now. If anything, I tidy up before they come."

 

And in case you hadn't noticed, Ghostie did type this:-

 

"There are unfortunately numerous individuals out there who through health issue and/or lack of family support do really need caring for, and I have no issue whatsoever with them getting a level of such at taxpayer's expense to make their lives as reasonably comfortable as possible comparable to their counterparts who do not have such issues. "

 

Ghostie wasn't referring to care homes but help in the home (at the lower end of the scale, so to speak - not those requiring help getting in and out of bed, etc).

 

Oh, and paulb, - just HOW precisely is Ghostie going to manage to visit a care centre? He's posted in the past he seldom gets beyond the doorstep.

 

@ChuckNorris - I outlined earlier that given the fact that the SIC weren't charging for certain care in the home that there hadn't so far been the market for a private agency up here ... but, you know something? I was wrong - look how many adverts there are in local shops for cleaners, which makes me wonder how many already make their own arrangements for personal assistants, etc.

 

Not all service users need the degree of care requiring use of a hoist, help getting in and out of bed, personal hygiene, and so forth.

 

I know someone in their twenties who previously worked in Birmingham as a carer. He left and went to work for a private agency because the working conditions were better. Sadly, a couple of years ago, he had a below the knee amputation due to cancer of the bone and has spent a lot of time in and out of hospital. But the same agency kept in contact with him and they're now working together to see what work he can do, even if telephone work from home instead. Come to think of it, I know several peeps who work as carers for agencies and none of them have slagged off their bosses.

 

There's good and bad in both the public and the private sector.

[CHUCK NORR1S]

 

There's good and bad in both the public and the private sector.

 

Completely agree there, but i was more talking privatisation as a job lot.

 

Yes, with direct payments coming more into play customers have more freedom in what care/support is delivered to them, this has been more prevelent this past year in Shetland, as I said before my concerns are with privatisation on a whole. I've worked in establishments south that have been privatised and care/support has been cut to a bare minimum, I hated it and I fear as to what the future holds for customers here.

[paulb]

unlink if you know of these folks that are abusing the care service then please inform the social service department.

 

1 they are stealing off us all.

 

2. hard to believe but there is more demand for the service than what can be supplied. in one area there is one career to cover a large chunk of shetland. their manager is struggling to even keep that provision. so if these people exist then they really need stopping.

 

3. from mine and the wife's experience their are way more people who really need help but through pride, independence or countless other reasons are really struggling to cope. yet your telling us that their are fit healthy pensioners nicking their care.

 

i do really hope this is not just a rehash of the tory scroungers views because if it is then that is shameful. or in fact it would be better than thinking that there are folks doing what you claim.

 

what does need to be reviewed is just what the charity trust is there for. i think its time that the christmas payment was reviewed and aimed at the most needy.

[shetlandpeat]

Yes, we were talking about privatisation, generally. There are levels as well, while someone has the money, they pay, they get a reasonable standard, once that money runs out, they can be moved, sometimes twice in order to spread the cost, this then can be seen as getting a lesser service as you run out of cash. Family I have in Shetland currently have to pay, a substantial amount as well, however, when that runs out, they will not be pushed around to a cheaper provider and one who will not provide the same level. I have seen examples of this when working in centres.

The suggestion that services in Shetland be privatised in this manner we have spoken about is very wrong for everyone except those who will make money. My family member who uses a service will not be charged any less, I am sure they would prefer too that the money they pay keeps the Shetland economy going, rather than reduce it to stagnation.

 

How many of these private care homes pay the living wage?

How many have signed on to the Dignity in Dying promises?

Why is it in Scotland there are no statute for Living Will provisions?

 

http://www.compassionindying.org.uk/scotland

 

Folk have to be treated with respect and dignity, the way privateers are lorded on here is quite sad and a reflection of those who think it is the right and only way because of a divide and rule agenda to feed an ethos that always seems to put folk further into misery, poverty and an early grave for the sake of profit.

[unlinkedstudent]

Yes, we were talking about privatisation, generally.

 

You can only speak for yourself - I wasn't saying all of social and nursing care in Shetland (or elsewhere, for that matter) should be privatised. I was pointing out that people have a choice. And choice matters - Dad didn't like one carer the agency sent along so they sent someone else who he simply adores. As paulb has pointed out, in certain areas of Shetland there's a problem with the number of carers available and the SIC might not be in a position to offer such a choice. Is giving people a choice such a bad thing?

 

The other thing Dad found was that where he really needed help, such as dusting the top of the curtain pelmets, the Council carers refused to do it as they weren't allowed to under Health & Safety - nor would they move the sideboard and vac behind it. Agency carers' manager did risk assessment, saw Dad had a sturdy set of steps (you know the type, 3 steps) plus the carers adopted the attitude "Well, I have to do it in my own home". Hell, they've even helped spring clean his gaff, spent hours helping him assembly his model railway, moved said sideboard and vac'd behind it - if it has required two carers to be in attendance occasionally, they've been there. At the end of the day, he's paying for it and he's not rolling in it by a long chalk. Why should people like him be denied such a choice?

 

And why, for crying out loud, do you assume that every single private company is a tax dodger? IF a private care agency existed in Shetland, they'd be employing staff living in Shetland. Those staff pay taxes. The company pays taxes. Perish the thought, if they had an office in Shetland then they would no doubt pay business rates too. How precisely would that be stagnating the Shetland economy?

 

@paulb - I suspect that whereas in the past those on the lower end of the scale having 'home helps' and got it free will, once means-tested and have to pay for it, no longer use it and will look elsewhere.

 

@chucknorris - nice we agree on something!