PDA

View Full Version : ICO Licence - Did You Register ?



Chanelle
30-10-2012, 12:18 PM
Just going through the process of updating Everything following EYFS revisation ...

I have got to ICO Licence on my list!

Did you all register ?

It is really infuriating me as we all have to pay for a piece of paper to say we can take a phoot of people or children in our case and hold info ...

Did you Bother?
What exactly does the £35 annual fee do?
At the end of the day, if the details do get into the wrong hands what exactly can be done about it? Its not like waving a piece of paper will make things better!

hectors house
30-10-2012, 12:28 PM
I am somewhere in the process of registering - I rang up and explained I was a childminder, they sent me a "Notifications" pack with all the information filled in for a childminder - I sent it back on 2 Oct, with chq for £35, last week I said to my husband that I was going to chase them as where was my piece of paper worth £35! Saturday I got envelope in post from them, opened it thinking it was my certificate but it was a letter saying that they were still waiting for my form back and money.

Have phoned the bank, the cheque hasn't been cashed - so e-mailed ico saying that it has either been lost in post or it is sat on someones desk their end! :censored: typical government office - haven't had reply to e-mail, tried ringing them on number given but goes straight to engaged tone!

sweets
30-10-2012, 12:41 PM
Nope im not registered with them! Neither are any of my childminder friends. Only ever heard of them through this forum,its never been mentioned to me by ofsted or my development workers.

BuggsieMoo
30-10-2012, 12:46 PM
Im registered. Its up to a £50k fine if you do not register when you should be registered and get court.

If you are taking and storing photos of children then you need to be on the register.

TooEarlyForGin?
30-10-2012, 12:55 PM
Just going through the process of updating Everything following EYFS revisation ...

I have got to ICO Licence on my list!

Did you all register ?

It is really infuriating me as we all have to pay for a piece of paper to say we can take a phoot of people or children in our case and hold info ...

Did you Bother?
What exactly does the £35 annual fee do?
At the end of the day, if the details do get into the wrong hands what exactly can be done about it? Its not like waving a piece of paper will make things better!


I am interested in a reply, I inform parents how I keep their information, when I have burned photos each term to a disk, I destroy all photos, as I do learning journeys and delete them. So I would also like to know (I understand we are told we have to be registered) what they actually do. If my laptop got stolen with some photos on, do they offer some form of protection?

As let's face it, it's easy money, telling 60 odd thousand people they have to register.

Chimps Childminding
30-10-2012, 01:29 PM
I have!! We were told by our LA we have to register if we are using digital equipment to take photos of the children!! Yes it annoys me, but its one of those things you have to do (bit like paying Ofsted) - unfortunately :angry:

JCrakers
30-10-2012, 01:35 PM
It's on my todo list :D

To do when?...I don't know...at some point

I'm cross with the whole thing so it will get done when I remember

tas
30-10-2012, 02:58 PM
Yes I begrudgingly registered but think its ridiculous that we have to :mad: Having parent’s permission to take and store photos should be enough!

I was told by CDW if I used an instant or disposable camera then I wouldn’t have to pay its only if you take digital images or store images on computer

Tatjana
30-10-2012, 03:07 PM
Nope.

Who is going to 'catch' us not being registered?

I'm tired of paying out here, there and everywhere out of my minimal profit.

mum24
30-10-2012, 04:35 PM
I have registered.
As far as I am aware, if you take any digital photos, keep any personal information on your phone, pc or laptop etc then you must be registered as a data controller.
There is a very hefty fine as someone has already mentioned, if you get caught out. However, I am not sure exactly how you would get caught out...
It is a serious offence though, and I would prefer to err on the side of caution.
For our money, we get a certificate, but we have to agree to keeping all confidential information safe, have passwords and pin numbers etc etc to protect any information we take or keep. I was told that even taking a photo and then printing it immediately and deleting the photo would still mean I needed to register.
However, I know a couple of childminders who have raised an issue with the ncma as the ico website keeps searchable records of names and addresses of those registered with them, and so there is a query re safeguarding, if they publish our details as childminders.
I didn't use much digitial record keeping before I registered, but now I practically do it all digiitally and send information by email, as I am determined that if I have to pay for it I am going to use it.
By the way it is £35.00 per annum, just paid my second year a couple of weeks ago.
We pay the same as a business employing hundreds of people and keeping all their records.
I really think that this needs addressing on our behalf. We pay out enough as it is.

kindredspirits
30-10-2012, 05:35 PM
I am not paying it - unless I have an ofsted inspection and they action it on my inspection report, i will not be doing it. i think its just a stupid way to raise funds.

BlondeMoment
30-10-2012, 05:50 PM
Nope.

Who is going to 'catch' us not being registered?

I'm tired of paying out here, there and everywhere out of my minimal profit.

I know! I've just moved house which has meant that 1, I've had to pay out all over again to fit cupboard locks and kidproof everything and 2, I've lost a lot of work! I simply can't afford to be paying out for yet another ridiculous registration fee. And ya know what, if they want to shut me down over it then do it.
I think if we keep bending over and paying out for every little thing they ask us to, they'll keep on demanding it. If we stand our ground and say enough is enough, just maybe they'll start to get the message!

funemnx
30-10-2012, 06:34 PM
I've paid twice now, every year we have to do it (I think) but ridiculous! :panic:

bunyip
30-10-2012, 07:14 PM
I'm registered with ICO. I have a legal responsibility to do so, so I register. :thumbsup:

The ICO fulfils an important role in safeguarding the way everyone's data is handled by all sorts of businesses and organisations throughout the UK. I value that role and the protection it gives me. I'm happy to pay what amounts to a very small contribution to that function.

There's a lot of other things I'd rather not be paying for: the Olympics, the Jubilee, bombs to drop on children just because they live in the wrong part of the world, fertility treatment, the list goes on. I've probably :censored:ed off most people by now, but my point is that everyone's wish list of things they don't want to pay for will be different. But living in a civilised society gives us all rights and responsibilities which we're obliged to live with, even if we don't enjoy them all. There are some things I'd definitely stand up to the state over. But £35 to help make sure that data is managed within sensible parameters isn't something I'd object to.

Fulfilling our legal obligations is not only correct, but shows parents that we're serious about doing things properly. Also it's part of our 'contract' with the state to be a childminder and use/store data. So if we pick and choose which rules we choose to follow, we can hardly complain if parents want to do the same to us, and wriggle out of their contract with us. Hey, if mum doesn't understand why she shouldn't pay when the child is off sick, then why should she have to pay? It's the same principle. :(

Personally, I'm unhappy with the "I'm not paying £35 for a piece of paper" attitude. It isn't just a piece of paper any more than your road tax disc is just a piece of paper. Not understanding (or bothering to find out) why it's important isn't really any excuse.

There are plenty of illegal minders out there who, similarly, don't understand why they should go to the trouble and expense of getting a piece of paper from Ofsted. :angry:

That's my 2d-'orth. I'm now going to sir back and wait to b flamed.

TooEarlyForGin?
30-10-2012, 07:22 PM
For our money, we get a certificate, but we have to agree to keeping all confidential information safe, have passwords and pin numbers etc etc to protect any information we take or keep. I was told that even taking a photo and then printing it immediately and deleting the photo would still mean I needed to .

But surely this is the problem we already agree with parents how we look after their confidential info, we are small businesses and we don't keep information about anybody we don't know so why do we have to do this? I actually understand it more for big companies where they are storing lots of information about a variety of customers, and a large workforce also storing info. But for a few photographs and some learning journey information it's absolutely bonkers. Unless they actually offer some form of protection or help if anything should go wrong I really don't see the point, and would be happy to argue it.

mum24
30-10-2012, 07:31 PM
I'm registered with ICO. I have a legal responsibility to do so, so I register. :thumbsup:

The ICO fulfils an important role in safeguarding the way everyone's data is handled by all sorts of businesses and organisations throughout the UK. I value that role and the protection it gives me. I'm happy to pay what amounts to a very small contribution to that function.

There's a lot of other things I'd rather not be paying for: the Olympics, the Jubilee, bombs to drop on children just because they live in the wrong part of the world, fertility treatment, the list goes on. I've probably :censored:ed off most people by now, but my point is that everyone's wish list of things they don't want to pay for will be different. But living in a civilised society gives us all rights and responsibilities which we're obliged to live with, even if we don't enjoy them all. There are some things I'd definitely stand up to the state over. But £35 to help make sure that data is managed within sensible parameters isn't something I'd object to.

Fulfilling our legal obligations is not only correct, but shows parents that we're serious about doing things properly. Also it's part of our 'contract' with the state to be a childminder and use/store data. So if we pick and choose which rules we choose to follow, we can hardly complain if parents want to do the same to us, and wriggle out of their contract with us. Hey, if mum doesn't understand why she shouldn't pay when the child is off sick, then why should she have to pay? It's the same principle. :(

Personally, I'm unhappy with the "I'm not paying £35 for a piece of paper" attitude. It isn't just a piece of paper any more than your road tax disc is just a piece of paper. Not understanding (or bothering to find out) why it's important isn't really any excuse.

There are plenty of illegal minders out there who, similarly, don't understand why they should go to the trouble and expense of getting a piece of paper from Ofsted. :angry:

That's my 2d-'orth. I'm now going to sir back and wait to b flamed.

I agree with all the above points, just seems something of overkill though with the very small amount of information most of us keep, and surely a smaller amount to pay would still achieve the same result.

TooEarlyForGin?
30-10-2012, 07:32 PM
I'm registered with ICO. I have a legal responsibility to do so, so I register. :thumbsup:

The ICO fulfils an important role in safeguarding the way everyone's data is handled by all sorts of businesses and organisations throughout the UK. I value that role and the protection it gives me. I'm happy to pay what amounts to a very small contribution to that function.

There's a lot of other things I'd rather not be paying for: the Olympics, the Jubilee, bombs to drop on children just because they live in the wrong part of the world, fertility treatment, the list goes on. I've probably :censored:ed off most people by now, but my point is that everyone's wish list of things they don't want to pay for will be different. But living in a civilised society gives us all rights and responsibilities which we're obliged to live with, even if we don't enjoy them all. There are some things I'd definitely stand up to the state over. But £35 to help make sure that data is managed within sensible parameters isn't something I'd object to.

Fulfilling our legal obligations is not only correct, but shows parents that we're serious about doing things properly. Also it's part of our 'contract' with the state to be a childminder and use/store data. So if we pick and choose which rules we choose to follow, we can hardly complain if parents want to do the same to us, and wriggle out of their contract with us. Hey, if mum doesn't understand why she shouldn't pay when the child is off sick, then why should she have to pay? It's the same principle. :(

Personally, I'm unhappy with the "I'm not paying £35 for a piece of paper" attitude. It isn't just a piece of paper any more than your road tax disc is just a piece of paper. Not understanding (or bothering to find out) why it's important isn't really any ethem Ie.

There are plenty of illegal minders out there who, similarly, don't understand why they should go to the trouble and expense of getting a piece of paper from Ofsted. :angry:

That's my 2d-'orth. I'm now going to sir back and wait to b flamed.


Why would you get flamed its your point of view. :)

But surely we must question charges as and when they happen, just as we would question any type of tax or fee. I understand road tax, National Insurance and even personal tax as I know they go to certain things. But when somebody asks me to pay £35 but won't tell me what that money goes to I will question it.

Just as we had to fight to allow us to listen to the radio during the day in our own homes. It seems as a small business we are a very easy target at the moment.

cathtee
30-10-2012, 07:38 PM
I've just paid for the second year, it's another thing to write off against my tax:thumbsup:

mum24
30-10-2012, 07:39 PM
But surely this is the problem we already agree with parents how we look after their confidential info, we are small businesses and we don't keep information about anybody we don't know so why do we have to do this? I actually understand it more for big companies where they are storing lots of information about a variety of customers, and a large workforce also storing info. But for a few photographs and some learning journey information it's absolutely bonkers. Unless they actually offer some form of protection or help if anything should go wrong I really don't see the point, and would be happy to argue it.


As far as I understand it, and I am not an expert, we are not paying so that they can help if we have problems, rather the opposite, we are signing up to say we follow best practise in keeping information confidential and secure, and if it is not then we are held liable.:(
This will still apply if we don't register but we also will have the added fine.

bunyip
30-10-2012, 08:12 PM
If people don't understand it, then the ICO website is no more difficult to find than this forum. Whether many people can be a:censored:ed to check it remains to be seen.

I'll concede that the fee structure is a little odd. Organisations only go beyond the higher fee threshold if they turnover something like £25million and employ over 250 staff (so at least CMs are in no risk of reaching that milestone.:p) This probably make no less sense than all the cut-off points for tax credits, personal tax allowances, child benefit and so on.

I pay less to the ICO each year than I claim for free milk. Now I really don't understand why a child is entitled to free milk at an early years setting but not if their mum/dad stays home to look after them. But I'm not going to argue about that. Strange - I don't see any CMs getting upset about the generosity of UK/European taxpayers (including the childless ones) who are subsidising us giving free drinks to the children of our paying clients. :rolleyes:

TooEarlyForGin?
30-10-2012, 08:20 PM
If people don't understand it, then the ICO website is no more difficult to find than this forum. Whether many people can be a:censored:ed to check it remains to be seen.

I'll concede that the fee structure is a little odd. Organisations only go beyond the higher fee threshold if they turnover something like £25million and employ over 250 staff (so at least CMs are in no risk of reaching that milestone.:p) This probably make no less sense than all the cut-off points for tax credits, personal tax allowances, child benefit and so on.

I pay less to the ICO each year than I claim for free milk. Now I really don't understand why a child is entitled to free milk at an early years setting but not if their mum/dad stays home to look after them. But I don't see any CMs getting upset about the generosity of UK/European taxpayers (including the childless ones) who are subsidising us giving free drinks to the children of our paying clients. :rolleyes:

I wasn't rude to you, there was no need to be rude back, we were having a discussion. I can be " bothered" but was asking a question, knowing that if the BBC could have got away with charging us, they would have, but the NCMA fought it and found it wrong in our small businesses.

As for free milk, I actually don't claim for it, but feel it is for the benefit of children, not some greedy money grabbing government body.

bunyip
30-10-2012, 08:27 PM
@TooEarlyForGin

:blush:Sorry, I had not sent my previous post at anyone in particular (when I do so, I usually say "@member'sname"). I don't think I was being rude, merely making a general point.

I do however apologise if my comment left room for offence to be taken. I assure you than none was intended. :blush:

I agree that the free milk benefits children. I don't understand why it should only be offered to those in EY care/education and not all children.

I can't agree that the ICO is a money-grabbing government organisation (and belief me, I'm no fan of governments.) I'd far rather have the ICO in place than have a free-for-all on the data held on all of us. :panic:

Your point about the NCMA and radio (Performing |Rights Organisation?) is well made. :)

Tatjana
30-10-2012, 09:35 PM
I'm registered with ICO. I have a legal responsibility to do so, so I register. :thumbsup:

The ICO fulfils an important role in safeguarding the way everyone's data is handled by all sorts of businesses and organisations throughout the UK. I value that role and the protection it gives me. I'm happy to pay what amounts to a very small contribution to that function.

There's a lot of other things I'd rather not be paying for: the Olympics, the Jubilee, bombs to drop on children just because they live in the wrong part of the world, fertility treatment, the list goes on. I've probably :censored:ed off most people by now, but my point is that everyone's wish list of things they don't want to pay for will be different. But living in a civilised society gives us all rights and responsibilities which we're obliged to live with, even if we don't enjoy them all. There are some things I'd definitely stand up to the state over. But £35 to help make sure that data is managed within sensible parameters isn't something I'd object to.

Fulfilling our legal obligations is not only correct, but shows parents that we're serious about doing things properly. Also it's part of our 'contract' with the state to be a childminder and use/store data. So if we pick and choose which rules we choose to follow, we can hardly complain if parents want to do the same to us, and wriggle out of their contract with us. Hey, if mum doesn't understand why she shouldn't pay when the child is off sick, then why should she have to pay? It's the same principle. :(

Personally, I'm unhappy with the "I'm not paying £35 for a piece of paper" attitude. It isn't just a piece of paper any more than your road tax disc is just a piece of paper. Not understanding (or bothering to find out) why it's important isn't really any excuse.

There are plenty of illegal minders out there who, similarly, don't understand why they should go to the trouble and expense of getting a piece of paper from Ofsted. :angry:

That's my 2d-'orth. I'm now going to sir back and wait to b flamed.

I don't find your comparative examples match this situation.

No, I don't understand how paying £35 annually is going to keep any pictures safe, it would seem alot of us don't. Please feel free to explain it to us...as I am one that cannot 'be bothered' to read through the ICO website in the extremely small amount of time I have for myself, I can think of so many more enjoyable things to do!

mum24
30-10-2012, 09:50 PM
Why would you get flamed its your point of view. :)

But surely we must question charges as and when they happen, just as we would question any type of tax or fee. I understand road tax, National Insurance and even personal tax as I know they go to certain things. But when somebody asks me to pay £35 but won't tell me what that money goes to I will question it.

Just as we had to fight to allow us to listen to the radio during the day in our own homes. It seems as a small business we are a very easy target at the moment.

I must have missed that fight:)....when was that, it has never even occurred to me that there may be a problem with having the radio, tv or anything else on in my own home. I tend not to because there is enough noise coming from the lo's - I really don't need any extra noise - but never thought I couldn't or shouldn't if I wanted to.

bunyip
31-10-2012, 09:23 AM
@mum24 - I could be very wrong about this cos I think the issue arose and was dealt with before I joined NCMA.

AFAIK the issue over CMs paying to use the radio and other media was more to do with the Performing Rights Society than any particular broadcaster, but I'm not 100% sure. The PRS makes sure that recording artists get royalties for public performances of their work. In general, most businesses who play music are obliged to pay a subscription. The shop I used to work in payed a sub cos it played awful background music to customers. (Really the music was so bad, they didn't deserve the royalties - but that's a whole other can of worms. :p) I'm guessing that CMs got an exemption on the grounds of educational use (?) Again, I'm not entirely sure.

I searched the NCMA website for more information but can't find anything. So either I imagined it or the NCMA have blown the potential PR value of another battle won for CMs (perhaps NCMA should've blown their own trumpet instead.) Probably just another one of those little things the NCMA does on behalf of all CMs whilst being criticised that the NCMA doesn't represent us and never does anything for us. :huh:

bunyip
31-10-2012, 10:18 AM
I'm trying to condense a huge subject into a few lines so please forgive me if I've botched a few examples along the way, and if I'm still failing by the end of this post.

I think the biggest single misunderstanding amongst CMs is that we pay the ICO to do something for us. Nothing could be much further from the truth. Essentially, the ICO does not exist to provide a service to business, but rather to ensure that businesses fulfil their legal obligations, chiefly under the Data Protection Act.

In this 'digital information age' we all have a massive amount of data held about us by government, businesses and other organisations. This includes data of varying degrees of sensitivity, which most of us would not want to be passed on without our knowledge or permission. OTOH their are people or businesses who would like to get hold of that data for many reasons: some legitimate, others less so. Therefore, there is a need for this data to be protected and managed within a legal framework.

The Data Protection Act was passed to control and protect the ways in which such data (in digital form) is collected, stored, used, transmitted, etc. There is an argument that the Act should've gone futher to protect data held on paper, but that is outside the scope of the Act: maybe for practical reasons or because digital data is more at risk, who knows? But that's not really what we've been discussing.

A CM falls within the terms of the Act as a 'data handler' if s/he collects, stores, uses, transmits, etc. data in digital form. This might include digital images, stored telephone numbers, names, addresses, medical information, etc. The Act does not really differentiate between 'degrees' of user. That is to say it applies to a CM with the names and addresses of 1 or 2 clients on their laptop in much the same way as to the NHS holding millions of patients' medical records on a mainframe. It applies as soon as I take a digital photo and the image goes onto my camera's memory card, irrespective of whether I then burn the image to a disc for mum, transfer it to my pc, or delete it immediately. It doesn't really "stop" applying - either I'm a data handler or I'm not - I can't turn that descriptor on and off.

The ICO exists to oversee and regulate the ways in which businesses, including CMs, handle digital data. In effect, it enforces the Data Protection Act and other related pieces of legislation. In order to distil its functions into a single sentence, I have cut/pasted the following from the ICO homepage.


The Information Commissioner’s Office is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

The ICO isn't really responsible for helping us keep our files safe, providing us with anti-spyware, finding our lost laptop, and so on. It's there to make sure that we fulfil those responsibilities for ourselves.

Now the money issue. The ICO costs money to run and has to be paid for by somebody: obvious. Government decided it was unfair to expect the taxpayer to foot the entire bill. Instead, it put a cost burden onto data handlers: ie. they thought it more fair for the businesses which benefit from holding the data to make a contribution to the cost of running the body which oversees and ensures that they do it properly. Hence our £35 bill for registration/subscription, or £500 for really big businesses/organisations.

This is getting huge, so I'll add a fresh post on the practical options for CMs.

bunyip
31-10-2012, 10:53 AM
What it all boils down to. CMs have 3 choices.

1. The CM decides not to collect, store, use, transmit, etc. any client information in digital form. They do not need to register. They do not need to pay anything. They can still use their pc for some limited functions which do not identify their clients. (Best ask ICO about what they can do without the need to register - it may include accounts, but I'm unsure).

2. The CM decides they do wish to collect, store, use, transmit, etc. client information in digital form. They do need to register. They do need to pay the fee. The CM pays, registers, and receives a certificate to prove s/he has fulfilled her/his legal responsibility.

3. The CM decides they do wish to collect, store, use, transmit, etc. client information in digital form. They do need to register. They do need to pay the fee. BUT the CM does not pay, does not register, and is thereby in breach of her/his legal responsibility, and liable to a considerable fine.

Now two of these options are the right, moral, decent, legal, honest things to do and one isn't.

My previous comparisons/examples posted yesterday may be clumsy - who am I to say? Some people 'liked' them, others found them incomprehensible: we're all different.

My opinion. The point I was trying to make is that, whether or not we like or understand everything, there are some things in which we are required to do the right thing regardless. Failing to do so is not only unlawful, but it also sets a terrible example to parents/children. And trying to duck our legal responsibilities puts us in a very dodgy moral position if we then go on to criticise others who try to duck their legal responsibilities or their obligations to us. This is not aimed at those who simply don't understand the ICO registration issue, but it is aimed at those who know their responsibility and don't pay simply cos they can get away with it.

I personally want to be sure I'm fulfilling all my known obligations before I criticise others for refusing to fulfil theirs - like the mum who doesn't understand why she should pay me for the day her lo is sick at home cos she hasn't read the contract. Or the illegal CM down the road who doesn't get trained and registered cos she knows she can get away with it and doesn't need a piece of paper to look after children, and anyway what has Ofsted ever done for her? Or the registered CM who advertises that he'll look after sick children because that might just make parents use his service instead of someone else who plays by the rules. I'm not justifying what they do - but I make sure I'm not living in a glass house before I start throwing stones.

For more information, anyone can phone ICO, see their website, or request their booklets. My DO tells me that NCMA are due to launch an online training thingy about data protectio and data management.

manjay
31-10-2012, 10:55 AM
I am registered with ICO as I have a legal responsibility as a self employed person to do so. Nothing to do with CSSIW/OFSTED. I fight hard to be treated as a professional and to me this is all part and parcel of fulfilling my professional responsibilities, as is understanding exactly what I am paying for. The argument about the charge has been had many times and that is one of the reasons we pay the lower of the two amounts. Of course in an ideal world I would prefer not to pay but that could be said about many things in life.

kindredspirits
31-10-2012, 02:22 PM
Can anyone tellme, is registering with the ico common law or statue law? :D I don't hold any stock in statue law, it's impossible to hold up in court if you know the right loop holes. I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with not registering with the ico.

marnieb
31-10-2012, 03:52 PM
Who has told us we HAVE to do it??

we HAVE to register with Ofsted

we HAVE to register with HMRC

we HAVE to have insurance

we HAVE to have first aid


I have never been told by anyone that this is necessary, not by Ofsted (who are responsible for us) or my do

Surely if it was, it would be as a HAVE along with the above, I had never heard of it until this forum, my cm friends never have, including some who have been cm's for over 15 years.

Tatjana
31-10-2012, 04:10 PM
Thank you for explaining Bunyip, I understand now.

I'm even more against parting with my hard earned £35 annually.

FussyElmo
31-10-2012, 05:00 PM
If people don't understand it, then the ICO website is no more difficult to find than this forum. Whether many people can be a:censored:ed to check it remains to be seen.

I'll concede that the fee structure is a little odd. Organisations only go beyond the higher fee threshold if they turnover something like £25million and employ over 250 staff (so at least CMs are in no risk of reaching that milestone.:p) This probably make no less sense than all the cut-off points for tax credits, personal tax allowances, child benefit and so on.

I pay less to the ICO each year than I claim for free milk. Now I really don't understand why a child is entitled to free milk at an early years setting but not if their mum/dad stays home to look after them. But I'm not going to argue about that. Strange - I don't see any CMs getting upset about the generosity of UK/European taxpayers (including the childless ones) who are subsidising us giving free drinks to the children of our paying clients. :rolleyes:

sometimes when i read your posts bunyip all I have is an image of citizen smith shouting power to the people :laughing::laughing::laughing:

ps I thought long and hard about posting this as I do mean no offence :D:thumbsup: