Loose Women talking about CBB Katie Price

[Vanessa]

What do you think? Who is right? Katie Price or Katie Hopkins? I'm with Pricey on this. She pays her taxes and is entitled to help.

[arista]

yes also debated on Ch5HD AM

because she is paying her taxes
it seems fine

[Josy]

Katie Price pays her taxes and as such is entitled to make use of the NHS and get help for her disabled son from the government.

As far as I know help for disabled children is not means tested so why on earth should she be discriminated against.

[smudgie]

She is as deserving of the service as the next.
She pays more tax than most of us, so she is paying more into the system to start with.
She fought for two years to get a school built nearer home, not just for Harvey, for all disabled kids in the region.

The shame of this story is that a young child has to travel to and from school in a three hour return journey in a taxi.

[MrWong]

Katie Price pays her taxes and as such is entitled to make use of the NHS and get help for her disabled son from the government.

As far as I know help for disabled children is not means tested so why on earth should she be discriminated against.

:clap1:

Katie H is completely wrong on this issue.

[sampvt]

The mere fact that nobody is looking at this debate correctly is sad. There are facilities that she could use closer to home BUT SHE CHOSE TO SEND HIM TO THE BEST, MILES AWAY.

Nothing against a mother wanting the best for her kid, but whilst she is rich and the others in her borough are poor, she gets preferential treatment because of who she is and the poor have to make do with what the government offer, but the poor pay taxes as well. So where is the fairness in that.

They conveniently overlooked that little fact and I personally believe that if she chooses not to accept whats on offer to her and the rest of the poor people, then she should pay if she goes for the upgraded version. I doubt anyone else in her manor with disabled children are being offered that funding, ortherwise all the schools in her area would close.

Out of all those tweets, are they telling us that not one person raised this idea. The loose women disguised this as a slant on their own girls enemy. Very clever but very dumb as well.

[bots]

The mere fact that nobody is looking at this debate correctly is sad. There are facilities that she could use closer to home BUT SHE CHOSE TO SEND HIM TO THE BEST, MILES AWAY.

Nothing against a mother wanting the best for her kid, but whilst she is rich and the others in her borough are poor, she gets preferential treatment because of who she is and the poor have to make do with what the government offer, but the poor pay taxes as well. So where is the fairness in that.

They conveniently overlooked that little fact and I personally believe that if she chooses not to accept whats on offer to her and the rest of the poor people, then she should pay if she goes for the upgraded version. I doubt anyone else in her manor with disabled children are being offered that funding, ortherwise all the schools in her area would close.

Out of all those tweets, are they telling us that not one person raised this idea. The loose women disguised this as a slant on their own girls enemy. Very clever but very dumb as well.

Completely agree

[jaxie]

Katie Price pays her taxes and as such is entitled to make use of the NHS and get help for her disabled son from the government.

As far as I know help for disabled children is not means tested so why on earth should she be discriminated against.
Exactly and also the entitlement is the child's. He is as entitled to the same help as any other child regardless of his parents and any wealth they have. I don't think his care is anyones business. We have no idea what his individual needs are and whether or not they might be met in any other way closer to home and it isn't really any of our business.

[the truth]

it a failure of the government and its idiotic rules....these matters should be means tested and a person with 40 million shouldn't get this paid for, end of

[smudgie]

The mere fact that nobody is looking at this debate correctly is sad. There are facilities that she could use closer to home BUT SHE CHOSE TO SEND HIM TO THE BEST, MILES AWAY.

Nothing against a mother wanting the best for her kid, but whilst she is rich and the others in her borough are poor, she gets preferential treatment because of who she is and the poor have to make do with what the government offer, but the poor pay taxes as well. So where is the fairness in that.

They conveniently overlooked that little fact and I personally believe that if she chooses not to accept whats on offer to her and the rest of the poor people, then she should pay if she goes for the upgraded version. I doubt anyone else in her manor with disabled children are being offered that funding, ortherwise all the schools in her area would close.

Out of all those tweets, are they telling us that not one person raised this idea. The loose women disguised this as a slant on their own girls enemy. Very clever but very dumb as well.


Harvey has been statemented, the name of the school he has to attend is named on the statement.
Not sure how much say or choice a parent has in this situation.

[Josy]

The mere fact that nobody is looking at this debate correctly is sad. There are facilities that she could use closer to home BUT SHE CHOSE TO SEND HIM TO THE BEST, MILES AWAY.

Nothing against a mother wanting the best for her kid, but whilst she is rich and the others in her borough are poor, she gets preferential treatment because of who she is and the poor have to make do with what the government offer, but the poor pay taxes as well. So where is the fairness in that.

They conveniently overlooked that little fact and I personally believe that if she chooses not to accept whats on offer to her and the rest of the poor people, then she should pay if she goes for the upgraded version. I doubt anyone else in her manor with disabled children are being offered that funding, ortherwise all the schools in her area would close.

Out of all those tweets, are they telling us that not one person raised this idea. The loose women disguised this as a slant on their own girls enemy. Very clever but very dumb as well.

She fought for more than 2 years to get a school built closer to home not just for Harvey but for other disabled kids in that area so it's nothing to do with her wanting the BEST?

And she shouldn't pay for something that her and Harvey have a right to receive free.

She has also given millions to charities that support those causes.

[Kazanne]

I have the same feeling as this last woman who is talking(don't know her) but she is spot on,IF Katie can afford it she should pay

[smudgie]

it a failure of the government and its idiotic rules....these matters should be means tested and a person with 40 million shouldn't get this paid for, end of

Yes, and in that case the rich people should also be given the choice of not paying into it then.

You really can't have your cake and eat it.

If people want to opt out and go private then that is up to them, but I don't see why they should have to when they have already paid up front once:shrug:

[Ellen]

The government say she is entitled to disability living payments but i dont think it should cover the whole travelling expenses. She should be at least be contributing to that because it is her choice to send him to that school.

[sampvt]

If they opt out to go private, the parent should pay like the rest of us. My daughter wanted her son to be transported to his school by a proper vehicle as her car is a 2 door and she cant get his seat in the right way. She was offered a social fund loan to buy a different seat. \how can this be right.

[smudgie]

The government say she is entitled to disability living payments but i dont think it should cover the whole travelling expenses. She should be at least be contributing to that because it is her choice to send him to that school.

Harvey has been statemented, the statement will say which school he has to attend.
All the schools for the disabled have been shut locally, hence the lad has to travel so far away every day.

[sampvt]

Ive just done some research on this and it appears that Katie Price refused a state school and registered Harvey at a school 54 miles away of her own choice, it isn't the closest, its her choice and she gets special payments to cover everything. Why is she allowed to do this, we couldn't. maybe her lawyers are in this story but its wrong. Being statemented is only the naming of the school, not how it was chosen.

[Josy]

If you google, one of the first results tells you that Harvey's School closed in 2014 and he had to be sent to one a lot further away.

It also goes into detail about Katie and her mum Amy petitioning the government along with parents of 45 other disabled children to get a new school opened in their area.

[Kazanne]

I agree with the woman that said that if she herself was rich enough to pay for it,she would pay and the taxes she has paid in would help someone less fortunate and Katie missed a good chance to do that

[sampvt]

If you google, one of the first results tells you that Harvey's School closed in 2014 and he had to be sent to one a lot further away.

It also goes into detail about Katie and her mum Amy petitioning the government along with parents of 45 other disabled children to get a new school opened in their area.

She apparently applied for gov funding but it failed, she could build the dam school herself out of petty cash.

[Josy]

She apparently applied for gov funding but it failed, she could build the dam school herself out of petty cash.

That doesn't mean she should though.

This all reeks of attacking someone for being well off imho.

Anyway, I think Katie Price does a great job raising Harvey, she only wants the best for her son and if the government states Harvey is entitled to the benefits then who is anyone else to say otherwise.

[Niamh.]

She's entitled to it so she's not doing anything wrong legally speaking but I think it's crazy that she is entitled to it in the first place

[bots]

There are always 2 sides to these things. Do we know if the other 45 kids affected by this school closure are also being paid to go to this special school miles away. If they were, they could double up on the driver with a bus, and have 1 carer etc.

KP may well be entitled, but being entitled to something doesn't mean that you need to take it.


Anyway, I think it requires investigation to get the truth of the matter.

[Jules2]

I have the same feeling as this last woman who is talking(don't know her) but she is spot on,IF Katie can afford it she should pay

I am retired on pension but because my husband has an extra pension we could not get free school dinners for our two grandchildren whom we took to live with us due to family split up. We cannot get extra help for the eldest one who is now in college so we have to pay for tools and trips. We cannot get help for the younger ones with school trips etc. etc. We paid our taxes all our working lives and still pay a certain amount on the pension. We are therefore means tested and not the "children".

Katie P is rich, she has wasted a lot of money on so called weddings etc. etc. Katie H was right to have the opinion she has that is her opinion and she owns it, each to their own. I agree with Katie H.

[smudgie]

She's entitled to it so she's not doing anything wrong legally speaking but I think it's crazy that she is entitled to it in the first place

It might sound crazy Niamh, but where would you draw the line.

Do we start means testing all services. Would someone earning £30 grand a year pay more to get a tooth out than someone earning £28 grand, might be a bit of an off it example but it keeps it simple.
The other side to it is, if everyone that can afford to go private did, imagine the waiting lists for us poor plebs that can't.

We all pay into the pot on what we earn, but we all get the same choices sounds much fairer.

[Josy]

She's entitled to it so she's not doing anything wrong legally speaking but I think it's crazy that she is entitled to it in the first place

DLA isn't means tested, I think that's a good thing, look how it would affect people and not just income wise, if people that had a certain amount of money were unable to receive DLA then how would they be able to apply for their care needs, home improvements that aid their illness, blue badges etc?

If they had to use the money they had to do all this themselves then they would end up having to claim the benefits at some point anyway.

It would affect the elderly massively that maybe had a few quid put away over the years, they would get knocked back for the benefits and the money they had wouldn't last long again they would then need to apply for benefits anyway.

Where would it end?

[sampvt]

You are all missing the point. She is defo entitled to whatever the gov sets aside for her but when she decided to go further afield to get a better deal, she lost the right to that special treatment. The other kids are not getting the same as her because if they were all getting £1000 a day or a week, whatever it is, there would be a crisis of mega porportions.

[Josy]

You are all missing the point. She is defo entitled to whatever the gov sets aside for her but when she decided to go further afield to get a better deal, she lost the right to that special treatment. The other kids are not getting the same as her because if they were all getting £1000 a day or a week, whatever it is, there would be a crisis of mega porportions.

Sam it doesn't cost 1000 each way to send Harvey to school, Katie Price used that figure to explain what it costs her in a limo when she travels to and fro London IIRC when she was trying to explain to Hopkins how expensive travel costs could mount up to.

[sampvt]

Also the poor kid has to endure a 100 mile a day 3 hr trip, that's wrong.

[sampvt]

[QUOTE=Josy;7539472]Sam it doesn't cost 1000 each way to send Harvey to school, Katie Price used that figure to explain what it costs her in a limo when she travels to and fro London IIRC.[/QUOT

So she has a driver, which is hers, to ferry him to school in a Volkswagen beetle then. Of course he uses her car, the same one she uses when she goes to London. Where did I misunderstand

[Josy]

Sam it doesn't cost 1000 each way to send Harvey to school, Katie Price used that figure to explain what it costs her in a limo when she travels to and fro London IIRC.

So she has a driver, which is hers, to ferry him to school in a Volkswagen beetle then. Of course he uses her car, the same one she uses when she goes to London. Where did I misunderstand

She used that figure to explain her point, that was the figure for her travelling not Harvey.

[sampvt]

The other thing I don't like is the fact that she is such a great mother that she sends her kid to school with a driver and a nurse on a 100 mile round trip. Why the fook cant she do it herself because then we wouldn't need to fund her.

[sampvt]

She used that figure to explain her point, that was the figure for her travelling not Harvey.

So why is her journey more expensive than her sons

[Josy]

So why is her journey more expensive than her sons

Maybe because she hires a limo? I don't know and I'm not really interested, I was just pointing out that she never said Harvey's travelling cost £1000.

Obviously the government don't see Harvey's travelling costs as excessive or they wouldn't be paying it.

[sampvt]

Maybe she didn't explain herself very well on the tv but the fact still remains that she chose to do something we mere mortals cant and she should pay.

[Cherie]

So why is her journey more expensive than her sons

She travels in a limo :hehe:

For the people saying she is immoral and should pay for it herself, who is more immoral someone who is quite capable of getting a job, with no medical or other issues, but is too lazy to get off their arse who is supported by the tax payer, or someone like Katie P who pays into the system, should she not get something she is entitled to?

[bots]

I think the matter requires a detailed investigation, and look forward to reading the results of that investigation

[Josy]

Well I never thought I would see the day were people actually grudge a child with multiple disabilities receiving benefit to get him to school and help him lead as normal a life as possible.

[johne]

Put the blame squarely where it belongs, cynical and immoral governments (lab and con) whose policies are decided almost entirely on the most votes they can buy, or how much they can benefit the government insiders and their friends rather than what is right or wrong. We've had several other celebs crucified lately for tax avoidance, again perfectly legal, but which should be stopped under new tax laws, not by public trial in the media.

[DemolitionRed]

The mere fact that nobody is looking at this debate correctly is sad. There are facilities that she could use closer to home BUT SHE CHOSE TO SEND HIM TO THE BEST, MILES AWAY.


Do you know this with absolute certainty? closer facilities doesn't mean suitable facilities. If this was your child and you knew your child would get a more focussed education whilst fully understanding the specific disability; within in a very specialized facility, wouldn't you fight every avenue to make sure your child got that assistance?

Nothing against a mother wanting the best for her kid, but whilst she is rich and the others in her borough are poor, she gets preferential treatment because of who she is and the poor have to make do with what the government offer, but the poor pay taxes as well. So where is the fairness in that.

Do you know that these poor children aren't being given the same offers as Katie Price's son? I do and I absolutely know they are. There really is no favouritism going on here. To get preferential treatment from the government you would have to be a sponsor of that government. I can assure you, Katie Price is offered the same as her poorer neighbours. There is no such thing as top schools for children with disabilities, only schools better geared for specific conditions.


They conveniently overlooked that little fact and I personally believe that if she chooses not to accept whats on offer to her and the rest of the poor people, then she should pay if she goes for the upgraded version. I doubt anyone else in her manor with disabled children are being offered that funding, ortherwise all the schools in her area would close.

I've already said but I will reiterate for clarity...when it comes to educational facilities for disabled children, there are no "upgraded" facilities. What they do have are specialized facilities geared for individual disabilities and this is variable depending on where you live. My sister is blind and had to attend a school for the blind but because her condition is caused from a brain tumour which carries various rare conditions, an ordinary blind school weren't able to facilitate her. This meant a lot of travel back and forth to an establishment that was geared for her condition. This was never means tested and was fully funded by the government.

[Cherie]

Well I never thought I would see the day were people actually grudge a child with multiple disabilities receiving benefit to get him to school and help him lead as normal a life as possible.


Oh trust me it happens, I work with Children with Special Needs, I see it a lot.

[Niamh.]

Well I never thought I would see the day were people actually grudge a child with multiple disabilities receiving benefit to get him to school and help him lead as normal a life as possible.

aw Josy people aren't begrudging the child, you know he'd be getting looked after either way, it's about his mother being more than able to afford to pay for it herself (and his father btw, he's gotten off lightly here, he was a multi millionaire football player)

[Cherie]

I think the matter requires a detailed investigation, and look forward to reading the results of that investigation

will this investigation include child benefit and winter fuel payments as well, because neither of those are means tested either.

[Josy]

aw Josy people aren't begrudging the child, you know he'd be getting looked after either way, it's about his mother being more than able to afford to pay for it herself (and his father btw, he's gotten off lightly here, he was a multi millionaire football player)

That's what some comments in this thread reads to me Nimah, Harvey is the one entitled to the benefit from the government but all I keep seeing is Katie Price has enough cash, she should pay.

[DemolitionRed]

I think the matter requires a detailed investigation, and look forward to reading the results of that investigation

Oh wow me too because only then will it stop people spouting off about how unfair it is. I don't find what Katie Price does for her son shocking, but I find some of the posts here heartless.

[sampvt]

Maybe because she hires a limo? I don't know and I'm not really interested, I was just pointing out that she never said Harvey's travelling cost £1000.

Obviously the government don't see Harvey's travelling costs as excessive or they wouldn't be paying it.

She has a big pink blob of a range rover she is always seen in. In fact on the tv in that police program she was clocked without insurance and mot ON A SCHOOL RUN

[Niamh.]

That's what some comments in this thread reads to me Nimah, Harvey is the one entitled to the benefit from the government but all I keep seeing is Katie Price has enough cash, she should pay.

Ok, well, imo it should be means tested, I'm going to leave it there I think :laugh:

[Josy]

She has a big pink blob of a range rover she is always seen in. In fact on the tv in that police program she was clocked without insurance and mot ON A SCHOOL RUN

Ok well I'm not sure what that has to do with her disabled son so I have nothing else to say..

Ok, well, imo it should be means tested, I'm going to leave it there I think :laugh:

Fair enough, I don't think it should and if it was then it would really have to be a very high threshold because living with a disability can be very expensive.

[Mike Literous]

So. All people who are multi millionaires should still get child benefits? Not what the average voter thinks.

[Niamh.]

Ok well I'm not sure what that has to do with her disabled son so I have nothing else to say..



Fair enough, I don't think it should and if it was then it would really have to be a very high threshold because living with a disability can be very expensive.

Yes, that's true enough

[Cherie]

Oh wow me too because only then will it stop people spouting off about how unfair it is. I don't find what Katie Price does for her son shocking, but I find some of the posts here heartless.

Disability awareness is sadly lacking, some people do not understand the local facilities may not suit the individual need and disabled children have to travel in some cases for hours to access schools that can care for their particular disability, if this was happening to able bodied children there would be a national outcry.

[poppsywoppsy]

From what I know of the situation, due to cuts in her area, the facilities for Harvey's condition have been closed, so the best one for him is quite a long way away.

If I was in Katie's position, With her money she could use her own car, hire a driver and Harvey's carer from home could travel with him, costing far less than her 1k a day costs.

If I was her, I would be proud I could provide this for my son, that I had the money for it and could use it for his sake. Is sending him on this long journey really worth all the time spent traveling?

I read somewhere that Dwight Yorke paid for his schooling at one time, but do not know if this is the current situation.

I wouldn't use government money when I could well afford to fund it myself, whether I/he was eligible or not. There are so many other deserving cases who do not have Katie's resources and could do with the help and funding as used by her.

[Cherie]

So. All people who are multi millionaires should still get child benefits? Not what the average voter thinks.

on the other hand should people who pop out children to feckless fathers every five minutes who then disappear into the sunset and never do a days work get it?

[Cherie]

From what I know of the situation, due to cuts in her area, the facilities for Harvey's condition have been closed, so the best one for him is quite a long way away.

If I was in Katie's position, With her money she could use her own car, hire a driver and Harvey's carer from home could travel with him, costing far less than her 1k a day costs.

If I was her, I would be proud I could provide this for my son, that I had the money for it and could use it for his sake. Is sending him on this long journey really worth all the time spent traveling?

I read somewhere that Dwight Yorke paid for his schooling at one time, but do not know if this is the current situation.

I wouldn't use government money when I could well afford to fund it myself, whether I/he was eligible or not. There are so many other deserving cases who do not have Katie's resources and could do with the help and funding as used by her.

The 1,000 fee was given as an example it is not what it costs to take her son to and from school, I am not even sure 1,000 was mentioned it wasn't on the show, maybe on one of the upload clips that I haven't seen.

[Mike Literous]

on the other hand should people who pop out children to feckless fathers every five minutes who then disappear into the sunset and never do a days work get it?


:laugh::laugh:

[Caballo]

So. All people who are multi millionaires should still get child benefits? Not what the average voter thinks.

They don't, if someone in the household earns £50k you don't get it.

[poppsywoppsy]

The 1,000 fee was given as an example it is not what it costs to take her son to and from school, I am not even sure 1,000 was mentioned it wasn't on the show, maybe on one of the upload clips that I haven't seen.

Yes Katie did make the quote of 1k or I wouldn't have known, it is also reported in the newspapers today.

[Mike Literous]

They don't, if someone in the household earns £50k you don't get it.

Not brought in yet.

[Caballo]

Not brought in yet.

It is, you pay an extra tax levy on your income if you don't decline child benefit.

[smudgie]

Do you know this with absolute certainty? closer facilities doesn't mean suitable facilities. If this was your child and you knew your child would get a more focussed education whilst fully understanding the specific disability; within in a very specialized facility, wouldn't you fight every avenue to make sure your child got that assistance?

Nothing against a mother wanting the best for her kid, but whilst she is rich and the others in her borough are poor, she gets preferential treatment because of who she is and the poor have to make do with what the government offer, but the poor pay taxes as well. So where is the fairness in that.

Do you know that these poor children aren't being given the same offers as Katie Price's son? I do and I absolutely know they are. There really is no favouritism going on here. To get preferential treatment from the government you would have to be a sponsor of that government. I can assure you, Katie Price is offered the same as her poorer neighbours. There is no such thing as top schools for children with disabilities, only schools better geared for specific conditions.


They conveniently overlooked that little fact and I personally believe that if she chooses not to accept whats on offer to her and the rest of the poor people, then she should pay if she goes for the upgraded version. I doubt anyone else in her manor with disabled children are being offered that funding, ortherwise all the schools in her area would close.

I've already said but I will reiterate for clarity...when it comes to educational facilities for disabled children, there are no "upgraded" facilities. What they do have are specialized facilities geared for individual disabilities and this is variable depending on where you live. My sister is blind and had to attend a school for the blind but because her condition is caused from a brain tumour which carries various rare conditions, an ordinary blind school weren't able to facilitate her. This meant a lot of travel back and forth to an establishment that was geared for her condition. This was never means tested and was fully funded by the government.

:clap2:
Great post.

[smudgie]

Yes Katie did make the quote of 1k or I wouldn't have known, it is also reported in the newspapers today.

Katie actually said, for her to go to London and back with a private drives cost her a grand..then went on to say it would cost a fortune for her to pay for a private driver and a private nurse for her son.

[bots]

will this investigation include child benefit and winter fuel payments as well, because neither of those are means tested either.

I'm not meaning it to be in any way harsh. My sympathy will always be for the person in need. When allegations are put out there, particularly when its in reference to a high profile incident, it needs to get a proper investigation to make sure further allegations can't be raised again in the future

[Cherie]

I'm not meaning it to be in any way harsh. My sympathy will always be for the person in need. When allegations are put out there, particularly when its in reference to a high profile incident, it needs to get a proper investigation to make sure further allegations can't be raised again in the future

Oh I see sorry I misunderstood your point.

[Caballo]

I wouldn't be that convinced she's 'paying her way' tax wise either, doubtless it will be all above board but she's more than likely a ltd company paying herself minimum wage and and taking an annual dividend therefore only paying 20% tax. Granted as a sum of money given her wealth she'll be paying more than us but I'd be amazed but a little elated if she was PAYE.
It all depends on your social compass I suppose but I'd be funding it myself in her position.

[DemolitionRed]

She has a big pink blob of a range rover she is always seen in. In fact on the tv in that police program she was clocked without insurance and mot ON A SCHOOL RUN

Link please or it never happened.

[abhorson]

I wouldn't be that convinced she's 'paying her way' tax wise either, doubtless it will be all above board but she's more than likely a ltd company paying herself minimum wage and and taking an annual dividend therefore only paying 20% tax. Granted as a sum of money given her wealth she'll be paying more than us but I'd be amazed but a little elated if she was PAYE.
It all depends on your social compass I suppose but I'd be funding it myself in her position.

Same here if i was worth £40 mil net. She gave some feeble excuses too.

[DemolitionRed]

Yes Katie did make the quote of 1k or I wouldn't have known, it is also reported in the newspapers today.

But she didn't say that's what it would cost to send my son to school. She said, that's what it cost for her to get a driver up to London and back. She used it as an example of how expensive a private driver is.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Katie Price pays a hell of a lot in taxes as shes said due to the nature of her jobs and amount of income she has.

That's what taxes are there for to pay for these expenses. In her paying her taxes she IS paying for Harveys day to day care and has not sponged off the government.

Katie H is making her out to be a mum with 5 kids on the dole sponging off the government which is not the case.

[Kazanne]

I am retired on pension but because my husband has an extra pension we could not get free school dinners for our two grandchildren whom we took to live with us due to family split up. We cannot get extra help for the eldest one who is now in college so we have to pay for tools and trips. We cannot get help for the younger ones with school trips etc. etc. We paid our taxes all our working lives and still pay a certain amount on the pension. We are therefore means tested and not the "children".

Katie P is rich, she has wasted a lot of money on so called weddings etc. etc. Katie H was right to have the opinion she has that is her opinion and she owns it, each to their own. I agree with Katie H.

Me too,:hug:and well done Jules

[sampvt]

Link please or it never happened.

Baiting threads like this show you for what you are stop them. The show was seen by thousands so don't try and be clever. Google it and you will find it,

[Kazanne]

Katie Price pays a hell of a lot in taxes as shes said due to the nature of her jobs and amount of income she has.

That's what taxes are there for to pay for these expenses. In her paying her taxes she IS paying for Harveys day to day care and has not sponged off the government.

Katie H is making her out to be a mum with 5 kids on the dole sponging off the government which is not the case.

But she wasn't was she? imo KH had a valid point

[Caballo]

Katie H is making her out to be a mum with 5 kids on the dole sponging off the government which is not the case.

I disagree, she questioned whether is was morally acceptable for someone with KPs wealth to be taking from the welfare state.

[sampvt]

for everyone else except demolition

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a277747/katie-price-caught-on-traffic-cops.html#~p2Ga3foXRXFUqW

[Vicky.]

She is entitled to it, no question about it

But it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth tbh that people with millions are doing stuff like this.

[Cherie]

I disagree, she questioned whether is was morally acceptable for someone with KPs wealth to be taking from the welfare state.

Its a no win situation though, is it morally right for someone to sit on their arse when capable of working sponging off the government and pleading poverty whilst drinking, smoking and watching Jeremy Kyle on a 50 inch tv. Is it morally right for KP to let the taxpayer pick up the tab (which she is perfectly entitled to do) whilst paying into the coffers. Honestly you cannot win with some people, they will whinge at both ends of the scale :laugh: It is her business and she is doing nothing wrong unlike the MP expenses scandal or the layabout taking money with no intention of ever paying anything in.

[abhorson]

for everyone else except demolition

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a277747/katie-price-caught-on-traffic-cops.html#~p2Ga3foXRXFUqW

No insurance WTF.. I despise that.

[sampvt]

She is entitled to it, no question about it

But it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth tbh that people with millions are doing stuff like this.

Ill bet she doesent get it after this. She will be told to do like the rest of the 45 mums and dads did. Accept whats offered and if there is any outrage, aim it at the schools and the government that provide this system, not us on here that think that all people, no matter how rich they are, should be given preferential treatment

[sampvt]

No insurance WTF.. I despise that.

If I was to get pulled for no ins, I would be charged. She used her wealth to get off and even though she broke the law, she still got off. That's wrong.

[abhorson]

If I was to get pulled for no ins, I would be charged. She used her wealth to get off and even though she broke the law, she still got off. That's wrong.

Money speaks.

[bots]

i think we are missing a lot of facts tbh, and that's why i say it needs a proper investigation.

This is not just about Harvey, this is about a school closing and the effects it has had on a community, with many children being affected. What I hope is that the other affected children received similar care and treatment to Harvey, given that it is all state funded. An investigation is the only valid route at this point.

[Vicky.]

Ill bet she doesent get it after this. She will be told to do like the rest of the 45 mums and dads did. Accept whats offered and if there is any outrage, aim it at the schools and the government that provide this system, not us on here that think that all people, no matter how rich they are, should be given preferential treatment

45 mums and dads? I'm not watching the loose women thing so can you explain what this is about?

I do aim my outrage at the government tbh. There are disabled kids being forced to uproot and move hundreds of miles away because their parents have a 'spare' bedroom...those people are the ones that need help, not those with millions who can afford 1000x over to do it themselves. I don't blame her for taking what she is offered, but the system is so ****ed up to allow things like this to happen in the first place :umm2:

One of my mates with an income of 90k, and her husband works too (I dont know what he earns, only hers as shes always bragging) was kicking off about losing 20 pound a week child benefit when the new rules came in about that. I mean, really...wtf

[Vicky.]

i think we are missing a lot of facts tbh, and that's why i say it needs a proper investigation.

This is not just about Harvey, this is about a school closing and the effects it has had on a community, with many children being affected. What I hope is that the other affected children received similar care and treatment to Harvey, given that it is all state funded. An investigation is the only valid route at this point.

Ah I see, Im guessing this is the other 45 parents thing...

I would bet they dont get the same treatment...I would like to be proven wrong though

[Josy]

Here is a statement from KP's management about all this

The statement from her management in full:

'Harvey's school placement was assessed and agreed by the Local authority. When this was done transport costs were included in the calculation.

'This was done because Harvey has a Statement of Special Educational Needs because of his disabilities. Within this Statement it includes the name of the school Harvey must attend.

'Where any child that is placed in a school out of their immediate home area it is the Local Authorities DUTY to provide transport that meets the child's needs. This is common practice for all disabled children as there are not enough suitable schools available to them.

'The cost of the school placement together with transport is not means tested as it is provided for the child. Local Authorities do not have special needs schools locally as these have been closed during the last 15 years as it was deemed a cheaper option to transport children out of borough. If Harvey's school was on his doorstep, as with schools for healthy children, then this would not apply but it was the Governments choice to close the special needs schools.

'The education law states that the local authority must provide transport to and from the school that is named in the statement. This must be appropriate to the child’s needs and include the provision of an escort (in Harvey’s case a nurse) who is trained to cope with the child’s medical needs.

'The escort (nurse) is because Harvey’s condition is life threatening and he has to have someone capable of giving emergency injections to save his life.

'Kate's calculation of £1000 per day is based on hiring her private driver and a private nurse, to drive to and from her home to Harvey’s school twice a day (which is 1.5 hrs drive each way). This is not the sum that local authority pays.


This has been posted on her official website.

[sampvt]

It would appear and on first reading the info out there, that Priceys sons school closed and 45 kids were left to find other schools. Pricey took the stance that she wasn't interested in what was on offer and decided to go further afield to get better care for her son which is ok and I applaud her. But the crux is why is she being funded as the other kids were all re sited in other local schools. Pricey is getting preferential treatment and is getting public money to fund her decision. That's what the hoohah is about.

[Josy]

It would appear and on first reading the info out there, that Priceys sons school closed and 45 kids were left to find other schools. Pricey took the stance that she wasn't interested in what was on offer and decided to go further afield to get better care for her son which is ok and I applaud her. But the crux is why is she being funded as the other kids were all re sited in other local schools. Pricey is getting preferential treatment and is getting public money to fund her decision. That's what the hoohah is about.

She never decided where Harvey would go to school, why do you keep saying otherwise?

[sampvt]

Here is a statement from KP's management about all this



This has been posted on her official website.

So what you are saying is that Pricey lied and misled us.

[Josy]

So what you are saying is that Pricey lied and misled us.

No because she never said that she decided where he should go, you seem to have decided that all by yourself.

The child has to attend a school that fits his needs.

[sampvt]

She never decided where Harvey would go to school, why do you keep saying otherwise?

I read somewhere this morning that Pricey herself decided to go outside her borough and it was also her decision to hire a nurse and driver to take him to and from his school. That seems to be what all the other posts are inferring but if its wrong then I hold my hand up but I am only saying what everyone else is and it all sounds very strange that the government would be willing to fork out 45 x £1000 a day for all these kids to go to a school 50 miles away. Its not logically economic.

Do the maths, a new school would be peanuts in the face of this scenario, so we can only assume that either Pricey was wrong, her web site is fudging or the other 44 kids are taking second best. You decide.

[Josy]

I read somewhere this morning that Pricey herself decided to go outside her borough and it was also her decision to hire a nurse and driver to take him to and from his school. That seems to be what all the other posts are inferring but if its wrong then I hold my hand up but I am only saying what everyone else is and it all sounds very strange that the government would be willing to fork out 45 x £1000 a day for all these kids to go to a school 50 miles away. Its not logically economic.

Do the maths, a new school would be peanuts in the face of this scenario, so we can only assume that either Pricey was wrong, her web site is fudging or the other 44 kids are taking second best. You decide.


The statement from her management in full:

'Harvey's school placement was assessed and agreed by the Local authority. When this was done transport costs were included in the calculation.

'This was done because Harvey has a Statement of Special Educational Needs because of his disabilities. Within this Statement it includes the name of the school Harvey must attend.

'Where any child that is placed in a school out of their immediate home area it is the Local Authorities DUTY to provide transport that meets the child's needs. This is common practice for all disabled children as there are not enough suitable schools available to them.

'The cost of the school placement together with transport is not means tested as it is provided for the child. Local Authorities do not have special needs schools locally as these have been closed during the last 15 years as it was deemed a cheaper option to transport children out of borough. If Harvey's school was on his doorstep, as with schools for healthy children, then this would not apply but it was the Governments choice to close the special needs schools.

'The education law states that the local authority must provide transport to and from the school that is named in the statement. This must be appropriate to the child’s needs and include the provision of an escort (in Harvey’s case a nurse) who is trained to cope with the child’s medical needs.

'The escort (nurse) is because Harvey’s condition is life threatening and he has to have someone capable of giving emergency injections to save his life.

'Kate's calculation of £1000 per day is based on hiring her private driver and a private nurse, to drive to and from her home to Harvey’s school twice a day (which is 1.5 hrs drive each way). This is not the sum that local authority pays.

.

Numerous posters commented throughout the thread about Katie NOT being the one that decided where he would go

[Pink Pegasus]

I read somewhere this morning that Pricey herself decided to go outside her borough and it was also her decision to hire a nurse and driver to take him to and from his school. That seems to be what all the other posts are inferring but if its wrong then I hold my hand up but I am only saying what everyone else is and it all sounds very strange that the government would be willing to fork out 45 x £1000 a day for all these kids to go to a school 50 miles away. Its not logically economic.

Do the maths, a new school would be peanuts in the face of this scenario, so we can only assume that either Pricey was wrong, her web site is fudging or the other 44 kids are taking second best. You decide.

That was just Katie's estimate of what it would cost her to do it privately, it says in that statement:

Kate's calculation of £1000 per day is based on hiring her private driver and a private nurse, to drive to and from her home to Harvey’s school twice a day (which is 1.5 hrs drive each way). This is not the sum that local authority pays.

[Cherie]

I read somewhere this morning that Pricey herself decided to go outside her borough and it was also her decision to hire a nurse and driver to take him to and from his school. That seems to be what all the other posts are inferring but if its wrong then I hold my hand up but I am only saying what everyone else is and it all sounds very strange that the government would be willing to fork out 45 x £1000 a day for all these kids to go to a school 50 miles away. Its not logically economic.

Do the maths, a new school would be peanuts in the face of this scenario, so we can only assume that either Pricey was wrong, her web site is fudging or the other 44 kids are taking second best. You decide.

The 1,000 was an example that KP gave about her own transport costs, this is not what it is costing Harvey, when they say "a driver" they mean a local mini cab firm, and when they say a nurse, they mean an escort trained in administering either epi pen or injections who will be a normal wage, it will cost no where near 1,000 a day and obviously it is far less than building and staffing a local school so obviously it is the cheapest option for the Local Education Authority.

[sampvt]

TBH I am not interested in what her management company says, a 50 mile taxi twice a day does not cost 1000 quid. Bit \I will await the local councils report on this as I reckon their phones are pretty hot at the moment.

[Josy]

TBH I am not interested in what her management company says, a 50 mile taxi twice a day does not cost 1000 quid. Bit \I will await the local councils report on this as I reckon their phones are pretty hot at the moment.

No one said it cost 1000 quid.

[Cherie]

TBH I am not interested in what her management company says, a 50 mile taxi twice a day does not cost 1000 quid. Bit \I will await the local councils report on this as I reckon their phones are pretty hot at the moment.

who said it cost 1,000 quid, nowhere has the cost of Harveys transport costs been mentioned :laugh:

[*mazedsalv**]

OK, usually I'm one to say "Well, you have money so why don't you do this and that", but when I say that, it's for other things, smaller things for example, eg. when celebrities get into nightclubs for free even though they have lots of money and the average person needs to pay...

BUT

That's it on that part. Those are the sort of times where I think celebs should be paying as they have money.

But this is different. I completely agree with Katie Price here. Why is she not allowed to be helped out? She pays her taxes like everyone else, yes, she has money, BUT that doesn't mean anything. Lets say Harvey falls down and breaks his arm, Katie Price rushes her son to the hospital and they say, "Ermm, sorry Katie, we can't help your son because you have money, pay for it yourself"... that would be appalling. Everyone is entitled.

[Cherie]

OK, usually I'm one to say "Well, you have money so why don't you do this and that", but when I say that, it's for other things, smaller things for example, eg. when celebrities get into nightclubs for free even though they have lots of money and the average person needs to pay...

BUT

That's it on that part. Those are the sort of times where I think celebs should be paying as they have money.

But this is different. I completely agree with Katie Price here. Why is she not allowed to be helped out? She pays her taxes like everyone else, yes, she has money, BUT that doesn't mean anything. Lets say Harvey falls down and breaks his arm, Katie Price rushes her son to the hospital and they say, "Ermm, sorry Katie, we can't help your son because you have money, pay for it yourself"... that would be appalling. Everyone is entitled.


superb example.

[Denver]

My views is she pays her taxes which is probaly millions over the years and is entilted to get something back to help her son son.

what would you rather it was spent on?

A Disabled child?

or

Funding people Drug and Drink addictions?
People eating far to much then being to lazy to loose it themselves opt for surgery?
People who have no willingness to work and happy to spend there life on benifits

[DemolitionRed]

Baiting threads like this show you for what you are stop them. The show was seen by thousands so don't try and be clever. Google it and you will find it,

I've googled "Katie Price prosecuted for no motor insurance" and I've come up with zilch. I then tried, "Katie Price caught on camera whilst driving without insurance" and again it came up with nothing.

Baiting!! I wouldn't dream of posting accusations against anyone without a link and expect them to believe me...duh!

[DemolitionRed]

TBH I am not interested in what her management company says, a 50 mile taxi twice a day does not cost 1000 quid. Bit \I will await the local councils report on this as I reckon their phones are pretty hot at the moment.

I await the trial!!

[sampvt]

I've googled "Katie Price prosecuted for no motor insurance" and I've come up with zilch. I then tried, "Katie Price caught on camera whilst driving without insurance" and again it came up with nothing.

Baiting!! I wouldn't dream of posting accusations against anyone without a link and expect them to believe me...duh!

Don't let the fact that I have already posted the thread sway your judgement, lol. You might need to scroll up a but and its the post....for everyone except you but you didn't need to take that literary.

Post 72 I think

[sampvt]

Demolition DUH is an insult, please refrain

[bots]

I've googled "Katie Price prosecuted for no motor insurance" and I've come up with zilch. I then tried, "Katie Price caught on camera whilst driving without insurance" and again it came up with nothing.

Baiting!! I wouldn't dream of posting accusations against anyone without a link and expect them to believe me...duh!

JVewOrLqi0Q

Don't see her being prosecuted though

[Josy]

Did she prove after that she actually was insured? sure it was in one of the newspapers, not positive though.

[sampvt]

JVewOrLqi0Q

Don't see her being prosecuted though

Nah, her flash lawyers got her off. Something we mere mortals cant do.

[Ellen]

It was on a police tv show. She got pulled over for illegal plates and was found to have no insurance as well.
I am not 100% but i think at a later date she showed she was insured but there was a mix up so she got let off.

[DemolitionRed]

JVewOrLqi0Q

Don't see her being prosecuted though

Thank you bitontheside :)

[Josy]

It was on a police tv show. She got pulled over for illegal plates and was found to have no insurance as well.
I am not 100% but i think at a later date she showed she was insured but there was a mix up so she got let off.

Yep I'm sure I read this

[sampvt]

It was on a police tv show. She got pulled over for illegal plates and was found to have no insurance as well.
I am not 100% but i think at a later date she showed she was insured but there was a mix up so she got let off.

She accused her secretary for mixing up the papers and not sending her payment in with enough time but \I do believe no further action was taken but she was defo allowed to drive away from the scene in a car with no insurance or correct plates, which is in itself a crime.

At the time she was stopped, she wasn't insured, end of. It was sorted out later so why let her drive home. We would have been impounded and asked to pay 300 quid to get our car out of the pound.

[bots]

She accused her secretary for mixing up the papers and not sending her payment in with enough time but \I do believe no further action was taken but she was defo allowed to drive away from the scene in a car with no insurance or correct plates, which is in itself a crime.

At the time she was stopped, she wasn't insured, end of. It was sorted out later so why let her drive home. We would have been impounded and asked to pay 300 quid to get our car out of the pound.

If she had no insurance for a month or something, yes, but they always allow for delay in systems being updated. The same would apply to anyone if they were talking hours or a day or 2.

[Pink Pegasus]

"It wasn't clear that the insurance at that time had been purchased for the vehicle" "we asked her to produce the details of her her vehicle within 7 days"

"Kate Price, WAS able to prove she had valid insurance after all" "Her real trouble was having to make sure her personalised numberplate is legal"


At the start of the video they say they "stopped Jordan the other day" because of her number plates, they later say it was "within 3 weeks" since they had last spoke with her.

They said she definitely had insurance the first time they spoke, so it reasonable to believe that it had just been very recently expired then renewed so computer hadn't processed it yet when they picked her up the second time.

[hijaxers]

Baiting threads like this show you for what you are stop them. The show was seen by thousands so don't try and be clever. Google it and you will find it,

Yes i saw that programme, he is speaking the truth

[Hope Springs]

The mere fact that nobody is looking at this debate correctly is sad. There are facilities that she could use closer to home BUT SHE CHOSE TO SEND HIM TO THE BEST, MILES AWAY.

They conveniently overlooked that little fact and I personally believe that if she chooses not to accept whats on offer to her and the rest of the poor people, then she should pay if she goes for the upgraded version. I doubt anyone else in her manor with disabled children are being offered that funding, ortherwise all the schools in her area would close.
.

They said on LW today, there was no places to accommodate a child like Harvey closer to their home. If THAT is the case, then why the chuff shouldn't she get help? Every child is entitled to a free education. If what YOU say is true, then it's wrong and she should pay for the transport herself... Where did you see that there were available places closer to home?

[Hope Springs]

Harvey has been statemented, the name of the school he has to attend is named on the statement.
Not sure how much say or choice a parent has in this situation.

Depends on the needs that are on the statement. If the child has such needs that can only be met by specific schools whatever... but either way, they are entitled (statemented or not) to a place in the best school for their needs, closest to their home address.. If the nearest school able to accommodate Harvey is 50 miles from his home then I think the government should pay for the transport to get him there.
Personally however, if I had 40 Million in the bank, and had to send my child on a 100 mile round trip journey to school every single day, I would pull him out of school and I would pay for a private tutor for him in the home.

[DemolitionRed]

Don't let the fact that I have already posted the thread sway your judgement, lol. You might need to scroll up a but and its the post....for everyone except you but you didn't need to take that literary.

Post 72 I think

Well I did, take it literally that is. I found it quite offensive actually ;)

[sampvt]

They said on LW today, there was no places to accommodate a child like Harvey closer to their home. If THAT is the case, then why the chuff shouldn't she get help? Every child is entitled to a free education. If what YOU say is true, then it's wrong and she should pay for the transport herself... Where did you see that there were available places closer to home?

I think the Daily mail report said something along the lines of all the children were placed elsewhere but Katie wanted Harvey to go to a school which was 50 miles away. I derived from that that she chose the school not the local government officials. Since then I have found out that she agreed to the school he is in but its not clear if she refused another one closer to home or she asked them to statement him to the one she chose but the local laws are that if the school is a long way away, she gets assistance, but that does not extend to a private driver and a private nurse, that's crap.

He may have to have supervision but a friggin driver, no way, a taxi 2 ways would be around £60 max

[sampvt]

On ds they are saying a local mother said Harvey got special treatment and she has to drive her disabled son on her own nickel but I cant say if his disabilities are the same as Harvey. Its all very patchy but its front page news now so maybe Pricey will learn to shut her mouth about her private business. She seems to want everyone to know everything private about her life, its macabre because she is only mid 30's and has about 5 auto biographies already. She is a little sick to do that.

[smudgie]

Depends on the needs that are on the statement. If the child has such needs that can only be met by specific schools whatever... but either way, they are entitled (statemented or not) to a place in the best school for their needs, closest to their home address.. If the nearest school able to accommodate Harvey is 50 miles from his home then I think the government should pay for the transport to get him there.
Personally however, if I had 40 Million in the bank, and had to send my child on a 100 mile round trip journey to school every single day, I would pull him out of school and I would pay for a private tutor for him in the home.

Home tutoring might sound easier, but I would prefer my child to mix with their peers.
As to how much she has in the bank, well, one day Harvey will be an adult,as such he needs to be somewhat dependent from his mother.
God forbid if she went bankrupt.
I dare say Katie will be paying out shedloads to help Harvey in other ways.

[Hope Springs]

Home tutoring might sound easier, but I would prefer my child to mix with their peers.
As to how much she has in the bank, well, one day Harvey will be an adult,as such he needs to be somewhat dependent from his mother.
God forbid if she went bankrupt.
I dare say Katie will be paying out shedloads to help Harvey in other ways.

I have home schooled my daughter. Im aware of the complications and issues.

I don't begrudge her a penny out of "the system" for Harvey, he is a child and as such it is HIS entitlement to the benefit, not hers.

As for a private driver, anyone who phones a taxi is hiring a private driver. A friend of mine's son is taken to school every day in a cab, only 10 miles each way, but that is the nearest for her son. He also has severe special needs and as such has to have a carer accompany him to school. I have no issue with it at all. I don't underdstand anyone who does have an issue with this. A CHILD.

[sampvt]

Well I did, take it literally that is. I found it quite offensive actually ;)

Post proof of this atrocity or its not true.....1-1

[smudgie]

I have home schooled my daughter. Im aware of the complications and issues.

I don't begrudge her a penny out of "the system" for Harvey, he is a child and as such it is HIS entitlement to the benefit, not hers.

As for a private driver, anyone who phones a taxi is hiring a private driver. A friend of mine's son is taken to school every day in a cab, only 10 miles each way, but that is the nearest for her son. He also has severe special needs and as such has to have a carer accompany him to school. I have no issue with it at all. I don't underdstand anyone who does have an issue with this. A CHILD.

Me too.
Great post.

[DemolitionRed]

Post proof of this atrocity or its not true.....1-1

Unfortunately Sam, it didn't make the headlines but I'll shed a few tears if that would help!



ED to correct my incoherent words. Its difficult to write through tears.

[sampvt]

Unfortunately Sam, it didn't make the headlines but I'll shed a few tears if that would help!



ED to correct my incoherent words. Its difficult to write through tears.
Don't cry, just consider yourself rinsed, lol.

[Denver]

What people need to understand is that this money is not for KP but for a disabled child and i find it saddening that some people dont think he should be entitled to any help from the goverement

[Tip]

My sister is entitled to DLA, but she doesn't claim it as she can manage without. She's always paid her taxes and is hardly well off.
It's down to one's personal attitude I guess.

[abhorson]

My sister is entitled to DLA, but she doesn't claim it as she can manage without. She's always paid her taxes and is hardly well off.
It's down to one's personal attitude I guess.

This

[Marsh.]

The majority of this thread reads like thinly veiled jealousy of Katie Price's fortune more than any actual concern for the "tax payer's" money.

[Tip]

The majority of this thread reads like thinly veiled jealousy of Katie Price's fortune more than any actual concern for the "tax payer's" money.

Could be - I didn't make my post with that at the forefront, but I wouldn't mind a bit of that fortune. I couldn't have done what she had to do to get it though :)

[sampvt]

The majority of this thread reads like thinly veiled jealousy of Katie Price's fortune more than any actual concern for the "tax payer's" money.

And your point is.......

[Marsh.]

And your point is.......

In the post you quoted. No actual concern over how tax money is used, more jealousy over Price's fortune.

[Marsh.]

Could be - I didn't make my post with that at the forefront, but I wouldn't mind a bit of that fortune. I couldn't have done what she had to do to get it though :)

Well I didn't actually mean your post.

[Tip]

Well I didn't actually mean your post.

Thought I'd own up anyway :D

[Marsh.]

Thought I'd own up anyway :D

:laugh:

[Tom4784]

It's a non issue, she's entitled to it and she's probably paid more in taxes than any of us ever will in our lives so it's ridiculous to say that she's in the wrong for doing so.

It's not like she's building a duck house from tax payer money, she's using it to help her son. People just like to find reasons to whine it seems. There's plenty to dislike about Katie P but this is not one of them.

[Hope Springs]

My sister is entitled to DLA, but she doesn't claim it as she can manage without. She's always paid her taxes and is hardly well off.
It's down to one's personal attitude I guess.

It's not down to one's personal attitude... Harvey is A CHILD. He is entitled to a free education. Forget the taxi to school, why the hell should a child have to travel a 100 miles round trip to get a FREE education, and why on earth should his parent, irrelevant of who the parent is, why should the parent have to pay for a taxi.. that's not free education. The child has human rights. Your human rights are not punctuated with the clause that "unless you are rich, or your parents are rich".

[Caballo]

It's not down to one's personal attitude... Harvey is A CHILD. He is entitled to a free education. Forget the taxi to school, why the hell should a child have to travel a 100 miles round trip to get a FREE education, and why on earth should his parent, irrelevant of who the parent is, why should the parent have to pay for a taxi.. that's not free education. The child has human rights. Your human rights are not punctuated with the clause that "unless you are rich, or your parents are rich".

It's not about entitlement it's about social conscience.

[Hope Springs]

It's not about entitlement it's about social conscience.

I am sure KP has no conscience whatsoever about it... she pays a huge amount in tax every year. I wonder what Dwight Yorke's social conscience is like?


if you want to talk about social conscience... what about all the fat useless drunken drugged up layabouts that leech of the system all their lives... where's THEIR social conscience? Don't make me laugh...

[sampvt]

Its not about a poor child nor is it about anything other than the simple fact that KP chose a different and probably better route for her son over other less fortunate kids and she embellishes that choice by insisting on a driver and a nurse to accompany him and the tax payer stumps up. If she is getting more than others, she should be expected to pay her wack, not to expect the tax payer to bear the brunt of it just because she wants more and isn't willing to pay. Its not about how rich she is.

[Hope Springs]

Its not about a poor child nor is it about anything other than the simple fact that KP chose a different and probably better route for her son over other less fortunate kids and she embellishes that choice by insisting on a driver and a nurse to accompany him and the tax payer stumps up. If she is getting more than others, she should be expected to pay her wack, not to expect the tax payer to bear the brunt of it just because she wants more and isn't willing to pay. Its not about how rich she is.

SHE PAYS FULL TAX FFS.
And can you please tell me where you have seen the fact you are harping on about that she CHOSE a different and "probably" better route for her son over "less fortunate" kids..
Links please? If of course you're not making it up...

[Hope Springs]

A spokesman for Ms Price, also known as Jordan, said Harvey's school was chosen by the local authority and blamed the Government for it being so far away from her home.

In a statement posted to her website her management said that it was 'common place' for the state to pay for children's transport as there are 'not enough suitable schools available.'

[Hope Springs]

We hope the below helps other parents in similar situations:

Harvey’s school placement was assessed and agreed by the Local authority. When this was done transport costs were included in the calculation.

This was done because Harvey has a Statement of Special Educational Needs because of his disabilities. Within this Statement it includes the name of the school Harvey must attend.

Where any child that is placed in school out of the immediate home area it is the Local Authorities DUTY to provide transport that meets the child’s needs. This is common practice for all disabled children as there are not enough suitable schools available to them.

The cost of the school placement together with transport is not means tested as it is provided for the child. Local Authoirties do not have special needs schools locally as these have been closed during the last 15 years as it was deemed a cheeper option to transport children out of borough. If Harvey’s school was on his doorstep as with schools for healthy children then this would not apply but it was the Governments choice to close the special needs schools.

The education law states that the local authority must provide transport to and from the school that is named in the statement. This must be appropriate to the child’s needs and include the provision of an escort (in Harvey’s case a nurse) who is trained to cope with the child’s medical needs.

The escort (nurse) is because Harvey’s condition is life threatening and has to have someone capable of giving emergency injections to save his life.

Kate’s calculation of £1000 per day is based on hiring her private driver and a private nurse, to drive to and from her home to Harvey’s school twice a day (which is 1.5 hrs drive each way). This is not the sum that local authority pays.


http://www.katieprice.co.uk/harvey-and-transport/

[Caballo]

I am sure KP has no conscience whatsoever about it... she pays a huge amount in tax every year. I wonder what Dwight Yorke's social conscience is like?


if you want to talk about social conscience... what about all the fat useless drunken drugged up layabouts that leech of the system all their lives... where's THEIR social conscience? Don't make me laugh...


That's easy, they haven't got one.

[Hope Springs]

That's easy, they haven't got one.

but its perfectly fine for those who have put nothing in, to take it all out... if you read the statement you will understand the procedure better

[Caballo]

No it's not! Nor is it about statements issued by KP. If your nett worth is £40,000,000 in my view you shouldn't be taking cash out of the welfare state, whether it's your entitlement or not!

[drantb]

She pays into the system, she should also benefit from the system.

[Hope Springs]

No it's not! Nor is it about statements issued by KP. If your nett worth is £40,000,000 in my view you shouldn't be taking cash out of the welfare state, whether it's your entitlement or not!

So if a "wealthy" person needs an ambulance, they shouldn't phone 999? Should they also have their own police force, should they not have a GP? What about if there was a fire in their palatial home... should they phone the fire brigade or should they just expect jeeves to chuck on a fire blanket and hope that's enough

If you pay in, you are entitled to take out.

[Hope Springs]

The majority of this thread reads like thinly veiled jealousy of Katie Price's fortune more than any actual concern for the "tax payer's" money.


Doesn't it bloody just!

[Daniel-X]

Katie Price she's entitled to the rights just as much as anybody else

[Caballo]

Forget it, we've obviously got different perspectives on how society functions.

[Hope Springs]

Forget it, we've obviously got different perspectives on how society functions.

well clearly we do.. it's not realistic to live in the way you expect people to live.

[Caballo]

well clearly we do.. it's not realistic to live in the way you expect people to live.

The only person I have expectations from when comes to matters of conscience, is me.
What's unrealistic about someone of KPs worth covering the cost of Harvey's transport?

[Tom4784]

Its not about a poor child nor is it about anything other than the simple fact that KP chose a different and probably better route for her son over other less fortunate kids and she embellishes that choice by insisting on a driver and a nurse to accompany him and the tax payer stumps up. If she is getting more than others, she should be expected to pay her wack, not to expect the tax payer to bear the brunt of it just because she wants more and isn't willing to pay. Its not about how rich she is.

She. Pays. Her. Taxes. What is it about this simple fact that you cannot seem to grasp?

A person's financial situation is irrelevant, if someone pays their dues then they deserve help from the system when they need it. It's incredibly petty to begrudge her for it, she's not taking the money for frivolous reasons.

[Tip]

It's not down to one's personal attitude... Harvey is A CHILD. He is entitled to a free education. Forget the taxi to school, why the hell should a child have to travel a 100 miles round trip to get a FREE education, and why on earth should his parent, irrelevant of who the parent is, why should the parent have to pay for a taxi.. that's not free education. The child has human rights. Your human rights are not punctuated with the clause that "unless you are rich, or your parents are rich".


Just as the people can choose to send their children to schools where they pay fees (if they can afford it) whilst still having an entitlement to send them to state schools, it can be a matter of personal attitude and choice.

Benefits can be removed or changed legally, they aren't so much to do with Human Rights necessarily.

If people think they need to use the welfare state and they have a legal entitlement then that's down to them to decide whether to or not depending on their circumstances and attitude. Not everyone chooses to use them if they don't absolutely need to.

[SaveUs]

She. Pays. Her. Taxes. What is it about this simple fact that you cannot seem to grasp?

A person's financial situation is irrelevant, if someone pays their dues then they deserve help from the system when they need it. It's incredibly petty to begrudge her for it, she's not taking the money for frivolous reasons.

I agree, also I agree with you more because you have an Avatar signature and Avatar is awesome

But I digress

There are 260 working days in a year so that's roughly 260,000 she'd need to pay annually just for transport presumably . I mean, does she make that much?

[Marsh.]

I agree, also I agree with you more because you have an Avatar signature and Avatar is awesome

But I digress

There are 260 working days in a year so that's roughly 260,000 she'd need to pay annually just for transport presumably . I mean, does she make that much?

1000 a day is HER OWN TRANSPORT. Not Harvey's.

[Denver]

1000 a day is HER OWN TRANSPORT. Not Harvey's.

Its for her to take her disabled son to ****ing school grrrrrr

[sampvt]

She. Pays. Her. Taxes. What is it about this simple fact that you cannot seem to grasp?

A person's financial situation is irrelevant, if someone pays their dues then they deserve help from the system when they need it. It's incredibly petty to begrudge her for it, she's not taking the money for frivolous reasons.

I have never said she shouldn't get the gov aid she is entitled to, but her aid is way ott. She shouldn't be able to claim that much, That's all I am saying. she is entitled to a taxi, not a bloody driver and a private nurse, that's just taking the piss.

Wait till tomorrow when her council makes a statement which they will be forced to do in light of the headlines. I am right, you will see.

[Tom4784]

I have never said she shouldn't get the gov aid she is entitled to, but her aid is way ott. She shouldn't be able to claim that much, That's all I am saying. she is entitled to a taxi, not a bloody driver and a private nurse, that's just taking the piss.

Wait till tomorrow when her council makes a statement which they will be forced to do in light of the headlines. I am right, you will see.

How do you know that she's getting any more aid than what a normal parent would get for a child with Harvey's health conditions and needs? Why are you presuming to be the authority on what a child of Harvey's needs may be and whether or not he's entitled to it? You know nothing of their situation so it's dumb to get the pitchforks out for a Daily Mail styled witch hunt.

[Marsh.]

Its for her to take her disabled son to ****ing school grrrrrr

Uh, no it isn't.






















grrrrrr