[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.

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by 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.

Katie H is completely wrong on this issue.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Completely agree

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Hope Springs]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Hope Springs

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]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

Great post.

[Hope Springs]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[sampvt]

Originally Posted by Hope Springs

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Jules2

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,and well done Jules

[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.