OT: The sooner we're out.....

Grandson 2 get collected by LEA provided transport.

Councils are obliged to provide transport to get kids to school in such areas.

Chicken and egg. It's because most prefer to have their own transport that public transport in those areas is far worse than once.

In message , at 11:09:47 on Fri, 1 Jun

More than say 50 per village? I doubt it.

They've been sold off to upwardly mobile tenant, with cars.

Only essential for working many miles away (which is where most of the fields with crops needing picking are).

?3 a day typical for bus fares in a town.

In message , at

Someone else on minimum wage, in a rent-a-wreck bus. But there's an economy of scale in bussing a load of children to the same place every day, which doesn't work for itinerant drop-picking.

Now then, now then, now then, I'm sure someone could be found to take child ren on a bus and drive them to school and even on school holidays you'll fi nd someone to drive them almost anywhere, hows about that then.... will you supply free cigars and the key to a lockable tree house. :)

So they stay at home all day every day, since they don't have a car or PT?

What makes you think the poor in any city etc can always live close to work?

However, £3 quids worth of fuel could take you a long way with an economical vehicle in light traffic.

Really? A largish farm might well have as many itinerate workers as some schools take from a given area. Certainly enough to fill a small bus.

In message , at 14:26:20 on Fri, 1 Jun

Will the council pay?

In message , at 14:23:54 on Fri, 1 Jun

They get lifts, cycle, do stuff in walking distance.

Nothing. That's why they need the ?3 of bus fares.

Still need the car.

Why should it?

In message , at 15:12:50 on Fri, 1 Jun

To level the playing field with school buses.

Roland Perry wrote:

A factor that is reinforced by lack of cheap housing for those who wish to work as an agricultural worker and bring up a family as well. Many of the tied cottages that were available have been sold off to those who have accumulated a good sum from their property being in the wealthier areas around the South East commuter belt and also earning the remuneration that is possible if you wish to put up with discomfort of commuting for a decade or three. Having got thoroughly sick of the rat race they themselves were instrumental in creating they up sticks and move to the country to retire or set up a small home based business and in doing so remove another property that was once intended to support the local economy from the financial reach of those who work in agriculture. And in villages as elsewhere a lot of council housing which was a back stop for such people has been sold off and is also now beyond their reach because a former council property in a village is a different animal from those on a sink estate and with only a dozen or so such houses or small bungalows that were tacked onto a village in the 50?s are now pleasant places to live and priced accordingly. This is in the area where I grew up has lead to the strange situation of those in agricultural work who can just about afford a starter home in a town 15 miles away commute to their farm jobs while those with work in the towns who have the ability to earn more and can afford to live in the village commute the other way. This doesn?t do the narrow roads of the area much good as they crumble away especially at the edges where vehicles gradually dig into banks and verges to create passing places. And naturally a good proportion of the incomers feel they must have a large Range Rover like vehicle for the once every five year snowstorm that is worth so much they are afraid it will get scratched by a bramble that they stay in the middle of the road as much as possible where the former locals know something a bit narrower and less delicate like an old Astra or Suburu Forester is much more suited for stuffing into a hedge to let each other pass though pickups with crew cabs have become very popular as well.

GH

I'm not against legislation if it serves a useful purpose. It is claimed that a vast amount of edible food is discarded because it cannot meet the "standards" which are based on "look" rather than anything meaningful.

No, because sometimes you can buy something that has the taste it should. Much like early season strawberries from Spain which are devoid of ANY strawberry flavour and but perhaps a Kentish grow variety later in season is bursting with flavour. It's the same with a lot of apple varieties grown in Italy or France which lack flavour but the same varieties from South Africa are vastly superior with respect to taste.

I'm not convinced that taste diminishes with age. Preferences in taste may change and it is stated that the older you are you may prefer bitter tastes rather than sweeter tastes.

In article , michael adams writes

Some employers do.

Standards based on looks are for retail sales. You don't think a processed food factory worries about looks, surely?

You get paid what you're worth. If your boss isn't paying you enough, work elsewhere. If you can't, then you clearly aren't worth more.

We do not need 5 years to leave. How incompetant is our government? Just leave, right now, in 1 day. Cancel all EU laws, tomorrow.