Blairvadich Outdoor Centre Closing

tillergirl said:
Angus' description "non-essential services" is of course correct - in one way. Defining services as 'non-essential' or 'essential' needs vision.

Way back in the late 1990's I was a senior police officer and we learnt that Brixton Council were planning to stop all funding of "non-essential services" for youth and children activities. We were alarmed that these would be stopped in such an area and we were already concerned about serious crime which was predominently caused by young men. I asked a number of young detectives to go into Brixton Prison to talk to (not 'interview') young men who were serving long prison sentences to find out how their career lives started. And they were allowed to record the conversations. The young detectives were not very keen, thinking it wasn't very relevant to them and the prisoners would not want to talk. The result? Every single one prisoner talked openly and frankly. To a one, each of the young detectives found the process fascinating, interesting and so much to say. They immediately sent me a very clear message that crime could be reduced by some attention to children well before they ever came into the criminal justice system. I have the PowerPoint somewhere still but I don't recall each of the primary issues. But it all went wrong when the fellows were about 12 years of age: the criminal justice system, education, social services, parenting, policing etc . We had asked the Council for a meeting and I and some colleagues went. I ran the PowerPoint and used extracts of the recordings to let the message come through clearly in the prisoners' own words. At the end of the meeting, the Councillors to a one, said words to the effect "we don't know how to balance the budget at the moment but not one penny will be reduced for the funding for non-essential services for youth and children".

The trouble is when an essential service is defined only by evidence of a directly received provable product, it is so difficult to do anything except decline. Please, someone send the message to Blairvdich.
Click to expand...
that is a very good point. there is evidence that the earlier you intervene, the more benefit. i.e. nursery and pre nursery. to reduce offending. bro in law was a senior cop in Glasgow, doing that stuff. all stopped when a new chief constable came along. shortsighted.

there is to be a demonstration to save Blairvadich, on Sat 14th March, at 11am. not sure where yet
 
tillergirl said:
Angus' description "non-essential services" is of course correct - in one way. Defining services as 'non-essential' or 'essential' needs vision.

Way back in the late 1990's I was a senior police officer and we learnt that Brixton Council were planning to stop all funding of "non-essential services" for youth and children activities. We were alarmed that these would be stopped in such an area and we were already concerned about serious crime which was predominently caused by young men. I asked a number of young detectives to go into Brixton Prison to talk to (not 'interview') young men who were serving long prison sentences to find out how their career lives started. And they were allowed to record the conversations. The young detectives were not very keen, thinking it wasn't very relevant to them and the prisoners would not want to talk. The result? Every single one prisoner talked openly and frankly. To a one, each of the young detectives found the process fascinating, interesting and so much to say. They immediately sent me a very clear message that crime could be reduced by some attention to children well before they ever came into the criminal justice system. I have the PowerPoint somewhere still but I don't recall each of the primary issues. But it all went wrong when the fellows were about 12 years of age: the criminal justice system, education, social services, parenting, policing etc . We had asked the Council for a meeting and I and some colleagues went. I ran the PowerPoint and used extracts of the recordings to let the message come through clearly in the prisoners' own words. At the end of the meeting, the Councillors to a one, said words to the effect "we don't know how to balance the budget at the moment but not one penny will be reduced for the funding for non-essential services for youth and children".

The trouble is when an essential service is defined only by evidence of a directly received provable product, it is so difficult to do anything except decline. Please, someone send the message to Blairvdich.
Click to expand...

My terminology was a bit off. I believe that outdoor education for children is essential, especially as it's shown to decrease anti-social behaviour and criminality. What I should have written was non-statutory services, services the councils are not legally required to provide, of which outdoor education will be one.

I don't believe any council is closing this kind of centre because they want to or have a political agenda, but simply because money is tight. Legislation limiting the pay of any local government employee to not more than the prime minister I expect would be popular with the public. I realise that it will save little money in the scheme of things, but would be a positive start.
 
Angus, I don't think your terminology was 'wrong' in the common wording and as you say 'non-statutory' is technically right. It is difficult for councils. I think it is difficult for Government as well. There is an increasing demand for funding for the elderly and maintaining youth and children funding is hard to justify when the results can never (or perhaps seldom unless long term) be identified. A voice is necessary and I wish those who speak out that they are successful.

(Just dug out the old PowerPoint - the final quote made the point - not the exact words but 'my parents are out at work, what else could I do but join the gang')
 
maintaining youth and children funding is hard to justify when the results can never (or perhaps seldom unless long term) be identified.
Click to expand...

But even when long term benefits can be proven, there are those who in politics who are philosophically opposed to what they see as 'the government' meddling in the family's function.

Outward Bound ran a program in Florida for 50 years. It worked exclusively with 'adjudicated youth', ie those that had been convicted of felony charges or multiple misdemeanours. As such, these young people were fully documented by the authorities and their reoffending rates could be calculated and compared with those with similar offending histories who didn't attend the program. Every year, the social and financial benefits were clear to see in black and white, but the Republicans pulled all the funding as they wanted these people punished and not reformed. More expensive, less effective but popular with their voting supporters.

Revolutionising every aspect of education from the age of two to eleven even at twice the cost would lead to fantastic benefits in the long term. But instead, we have all shades of government simply looking for the lowest cost short term options.
 
I agree but that sort of long term benefit are difficult to pin down to specifics - but more importantly politicians do not (and perhaps cannot?) take a long term view.
 
There does seem to be an inbuilt drive to journey with a degree of uncertainty in all of us . Jacques Cousteau stated that the more he observed nature the more motivation for exploration is but an instinctive drive deeply en-grained in all living creatures.

I think it would be fair to say that much of youth crime is but a substitute for the above.

On the positive side , there is opportunity for adventure and self reliance available in some schools but the parents/grandparents have to pay for it.
 
The trouble is parents/grandparents for many are not interested or understand the 'role'. Just imagine: in a sink estate, there is no lead in education (for whatever reason), no guidance, interest or ability in parenting, no valid role model, what is there. The development of gangs was interesting: groups of chums messing around, bumping in other groups of chums either in harmony or conflict following the drive to journey........
 
tillergirl said:
The trouble is parents/grandparents for many are not interested or understand the 'role'. Just imagine: in a sink estate, there is no lead in education (for whatever reason), no guidance, interest or ability in parenting, no valid role model, what is there. The development of gangs was interesting: groups of chums messing around, bumping in other groups of chums either in harmony or conflict following the drive to journey........
Click to expand...
This is generally down playing the poor and those living on estates , and also parents and grand parents in on sweep of the typing fingers,
I think it is not so simple, and has to do with economics , as council run facilities are those used mainly by those on low income and therefore are adversely hit when the council decides to pull activities , like outdoor education , libraries , and other facilities like youth clubs etc
 
Last edited:
Although pension costs are rising quicker than any public body is funded, I believe that Glasgow had been squeezed financially.

Women employees who weren't paid the same as their make counterparts for doing the same job have been awarded the difference for all the time they were in that job.

I'm probably right in saying this extends to employees who have left the council employment too.

This means that Glasgow no have to find something like £500m hence every service is under the microscope.

Women win 12-year equal pay battle with Glasgow city council

Donald
 
tillergirl said:
The trouble is parents/grandparents for many are not interested or understand the 'role'. Just imagine: in a sink estate, there is no lead in education (for whatever reason), no guidance, interest or ability in parenting, no valid role model, what is there. The development of gangs was interesting: groups of chums messing around, bumping in other groups of chums either in harmony or conflict following the drive to journey........
Click to expand...
Agree with this and FlyingGoose'e economics.

The greatest Gift a parent can give to their child, is their time.
 
Disclaimer: I founded and administer an organisation which runs residential holidays for children.

Although there is a huge benefit in outdoor activities themselves, if properly done, there are also huge benefits to taking children from their normal environment for a few days, and the two benefits need to be recognised separately. Although I am sure Glasgow school children can have a lot of useful outdoor fun in parks, things done as part of the school days are never the same as things done as part of a trip.

My father's school was one of Blairvadich's first customers and he sent groups there every year until he retired. His school was in one of the very roughest areas of Glagow and he used to say that children were transformed by leaving the horrible envirionment in which they were growing up. I myself have been deeply moved by a city child who, on a walk through forest, drifted to a stop and said, with a dreamy smile on his face, "It smells". He had never before left concrete and fumes.

Outdoor Education Centres, if done well, meet both aims and it's very disappointing to read how provision has collapsed over the years. It sounds as if Blairvadich is doomed, but I hope it manages to continue under different ownership. A commitment by the local authority not to allow change of use to housing would help that.
 
That's good news. I wonder if these millions of pounds needed to do it up are real or a figment of the council's imagination?

We were looking at 30% cuts in the education budget in Dumfries and Galloway, but they have gone at the last minute and there will be no education cuts at all. Alas that's too late for our two OECs, Stronord and Carlingwark, both of which closed last year.
 
Only for a year because the Greens demanded £94 milion to Councils as one of their conditions for supporting the budget. The Glasgow Council statement sounds like a very grudging response, and the South Lanarkshire one in Oban is still going.
 
LONG_KEELER said:
I think it would be fair to say that much of youth crime is but a substitute for the above.
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on.
I was a young criminal, and luckily never got properly caught. I was bored and it was exciting. I would absolutely have been sent to Borstal if apprehended, and would probably have ended up a career criminal after that. The outdoors and climbing showed me a different world, and different kinds of people. It was a far more exciting and dangerous path than the one I was on, and I was fascinated by it.
I think it literally saved my life. My cousin, a rather dangerous psychopath, who was one of the big fish drug dealers in the local pond, ended up getting an axe in his skull on the doorstep of his mothers house, sadly he survived. Such was life on the other side in a council estate. He had been a talented badminton player when younger, who knows if the misery and damage he caused throughout his life could have been avoided if there had been other attractive options open at a critical age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top