A dangerous and stupid move by Wirral Borough Council- this will only encourage children to swim in ponds, pits, possibly even the docks and in the sea around our Wirral coast line where they will encounter all sorts of danger. This will be worse especially in ponds, pits and docks where they will be unsupervised, at least there is some cover on the beach by the Lifeguards. I thought I had seen some stupid and dangerous policy's by this Council but this one stands out as imbecilic. How long before some poor child drowns. I certainly hope nobody does, but should an accident occur its down to the idiots of WBC.

Santos, you may not believe this, but just a few years ago, when the children paid for their swims, there were always queues to get in.
Once they were given free swimming, they didn't bother going much and numbers decreased dramatically.
Child or parental psychology at play, but not necessarily understood.

Statistically if you look at council and fire and rescue records the greatest number of deaths on the wirral where attributed to drowning . Thats why the greater merseyside boroughs contribute to our search and rescue even though st Helens has no coast line.

The last time I swam at the Oval, were were permitted a 20 minute session, literally wasn't worth getting your feet wet.

Kids were much more interested in activities before home entertainment (DVD/Satellite/games etc) came out, I don't think it has much to do with the free swimming.

How many kids enjoy getting dragged off their game console to have a run in the woods these days?

We used to skit at couch potatoes, these days we are actively training kids to be couch potatoes.

Free swimming was a Government initiative with a financial reward for Councils taking up the idea. Wirral got £180,000 initially so it actually cost the authority nothing to start up.

There were always massive queues at Europa Pools. The admissions were broken into sessions to alleviate overcrowding.

The Police released figures that showed from the introduction of free swimming in 2008 instances of anti-social behaviour on Wirral reduced dramatically. This trend continued year on year.

Nationally, attendances fell after free swimming was introduced leading some authorities to abandon it early on. Wirral’s figures were stable with seasonal variations, but continued to increase gradually every year.

I may divide opinion here but i kind of agree. I posted something last week about how the council are taking fitness passes off retired employees and in that it said that discounts for pensioners and kids is to be stopped too. I don't see how they can justify subsidising kids swimming then hike up council tax, i'd rather they charged for kids and pensioners to swim etc and keep my tax from going up... i pay for an invigor8 membership and its great value for money so if people use the facilities often then one of them is great to get.

Besides, kids would much prefer something like football or tennis or mini golf than swimming.

Well they cancelled the concessions and put the council tax up so how's that? I think the jury’s out on the question of how taking away a free pensioner swim ‘saves’ money. It doesn’t save anything.

So far as I can see, free swims for children will not even need subsidising. If they do have to pay, it's extra income for the council.

The pools are full of water and heated, the staff are on duty, the buildings are heated, the toilets and showers are working, meaning there is nothing additional that would be needed if the children still had free swims.

The council will not be loosing anything financially, they simply won't be gaining additional revenue that they will get if they start to charge again.

It would be interesting to know how the £180,000 was used. That's a lot of kiddies swims !

They will be losing money in numerous ways.

How ?

the council are paying for the staff wages, energy bills, building maintenance etc without getting any income from the children swimming. Basic maths and business, charge people to use your facilities and you won't lose money. Really really simple.

A long time ago I know but when I was a child you or your parents had to pay for you to go to the baths. I was born 1940 by the way.

Basic maths and business doesn't really come into it.

If you think the pools are better open but empty for half of the days then good for you. The council won't make anything or save anything.

It came in on 1st April. School holidays £2.40 per junior swim. If two children in one family would like to swim each week day total of approx. £35 per week. That is a lot of money for many parents and probably not even possible to find.

They be better charging a token amount of £1 per head.

Having had more thoughts about this.

As the free swims have been in place for so long, it wouldn't surprise if there was a hidden agenda.

Council have been threatening to close (or sell off) certain leisure centres for long enough. If they get the income up ,it would be more viable to any prospective purchaser.

Just hope it's not the centre you use j-demo.

Agreed, Jim, (and I'm three years older than you)

I partially answered that on another thread somewhere, but here some thoughts .....

The more people that use the pools, the longer they are open, when they are open they need more safety staff.

The more a pool is open then more energy is used because they can put covers on pools when they are not in use which stops evaporation which is the main loss of heat.

The more people in the water, the more the water is disturbed which increases the amount of evaporation which cools the water and so more heating is required. The offset of kinetic energy put into the water is insignificant as its the increase in surface area that increases evaporation not so much the volume of water moved.

When the pool is full of free patrons, it reduces the amount of paying customers present which is a loss of income.

General wear and tare increase the more people that use the facility.

The filters, chemicals etc need replacing more often the more a pool is used.

The more people that use the facility the more admin there is to do, you can't simply double someone's workload because they are already there.

There are advertising cost for these free events, if they weren't advertised they would be pointless.

Your concept is obviously flawed, otherwise you would design and manage leisure centres for say a maximum of twenty people even though it might need ten times that amount, on the grounds that the extra 180 people wouldn't cost anything extra.

The more people that use the pools, the longer they are open, when they are open they need more safety staff

Junior swim.......through the school holidays. Open, staffed, and all in place ready for any children who may arrive for a swim.

The more a pool is open then more energy is used because they can put covers on pools when they are not in use which stops evaporation which is the main loss of heat

There is no talk of closing the pool for Junior Swims. So the covers will not be on. As above , all in place for even one child to swim.

The more people in the water, the more the water is disturbed which increases the amount of evaporation which cools the water and so more heating is required. The offset of kinetic energy put into the water is insignificant as its the increase in surface area that increases evaporation not so much the volume of water moved.


Are you saying it's better that fewer people use the pools for this reason given ? These things will have been calculated long ago and it didn't bother anyone then. There's more cost when babies poo in the pools. That's a major operation.


When the pool is full of free patrons, it reduces the amount of paying customers present which is a loss of income

Junior swim is junior swim...not adult.

The more people that use the facility the more admin there is to do, you can't simply double someone's workload because they are already there.


Can't really see that, when majority is done by computers.

There are advertising cost for these free events, if they weren't advertised they would be pointless.


Minimal, like photocopying of paper

With all due respect, I don't think my ideas are flawed , but the idea that children who would like to swim during their school holidays and maybe can't afford £2.40 everyday, is a shame and I hope the pools are used, but it's more of a waste to have all things set up with lifeguards in position for two hours, by an almost empty pool, cleaners, receptionists, first aiders, admin, etc. To save money, they may as well cancel the junior swims and close the pool for that period. However, the staffing would still be in the buildings as the centres will still be open for any other facilities that are being used within.
I hope that the children who could benefit from swimming, do not get otherwise engaged in alternative activities during the 6 weeks hols in the summer. Bored children can do a lot of damage.

The free swims nationwide were set up prior to the Olympic Games in London. Hoping to encourage young people to take up swimming. Also geared towards the under privileged. Wirral even had Duncan Goodhew visit the centres,(at what cost ?) offering advice ......how many children turned up ? I know, but I bet you don't

Bored children can do a lot of damage.

and if they really want to swim they go to dangerous places - what price a child's life so that Councillors and Council staff can go on jolly's all over the world - wonder when the next trips to America and China are.

There were always massive queues at Europa Pools. The admissions were broken into sessions to alleviate overcrowding.

The Police released figures that showed from the introduction of free swimming in 2008 instances of anti-social behaviour on Wirral reduced dramatically. This trend continued year on year.

Nationally, attendances fell after free swimming was introduced leading some authorities to abandon it early on. Wirral’s figures were stable with seasonal variations, but continued to increase gradually every year.
[/quote]