Saw the figures on NatActIrst’s “Boot Camp” pilot today? Turns out the cost was about $227,000 per participant. And of the 10, one reoffended
within weeks of “graduating”. Lasting impact, much?
For comparison, as I recall, it costs about $100,000 to put one inmate
in jail.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 05:40:46 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:
Saw the figures on NatActIrst�s �Boot Camp� pilot today? Turns out the
cost was about $227,000 per participant. And of the 10, one reoffended
within weeks of �graduating�. Lasting impact, much?
For comparison, as I recall, it costs about $100,000 to put one inmate
in jail.
For a year, of course. I don�t think the �Boot Camp� was that long.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 05:47:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><[email protected]d> wrote:Irrelevant. Seymour's concerns are about ramping up and ongoing costs. A brand new venture like boot camps obviously has start up costs. Even a schoolboy would know that.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 05:40:46 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:
Saw the figures on NatActIrst�s �Boot Camp� pilot today? Turns out the
cost was about $227,000 per participant. And of the 10, one reoffended
within weeks of �graduating�. Lasting impact, much?
For comparison, as I recall, it costs about $100,000 to put one inmate
in jail.
For a year, of course. I don�t think the �Boot Camp� was that long.
With other costs, that first �Boot Camp� cost $52 million. Perhaps it
was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringent cost / benefit
analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . .
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringent
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . .
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or $1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringent
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . .
On top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >replied that money was no object ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:That is an interesting concept you are proposing, Tony. Which young
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or >$1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringent
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . .
On top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >>replied that money was no object ...
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:17:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyI made no proposal, I asked a question., Please consider the previous suggestions that you get some English language training.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:That is an interesting concept you are proposing, Tony. Which young
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or >>$1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringentOn top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >>>replied that money was no object ...
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . . >>>
people did you have in mind for getting a handout? Do you think the >current government would be prepared to go along with your proposal?
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:17:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyI made no proposal, I asked a question., Please consider the previous >suggestions that you get some English language training.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:That is an interesting concept you are proposing, Tony. Which young
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or >>>$1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringentOn top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >>>>replied that money was no object ...
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . . >>>>
people did you have in mind for getting a handout? Do you think the >>current government would be prepared to go along with your proposal?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:Ah Lawrence, I see that you cannot answer. It would seem reasonable to therefore assume that you do not value the wellbeing of young people at all. Is that correct?
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or >$1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringent
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . .
On top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >>replied that money was no object ...
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:26:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was a clear question, I cannot be held responsibe for your terrible English, non-existent comprehension and abusiveness.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:17:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyI made no proposal, I asked a question., Please consider the previous >>suggestions that you get some English language training.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:That is an interesting concept you are proposing, Tony. Which young >>>people did you have in mind for getting a handout? Do you think the >>>current government would be prepared to go along with your proposal?
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or >>>>$1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringentOn top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >>>>>replied that money was no object ...
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . . >>>>>
Your question appeared to have no relevance to Boot Camps, no
relevance to any government policy, no apparent relevance to young
people, but a brain-fart of your own making. If you really want an
answer to a question you need to define just what you are talking
about.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:26:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:17:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyI made no proposal, I asked a question., Please consider the previous >>suggestions that you get some English language training.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:That is an interesting concept you are proposing, Tony. Which young >>>people did you have in mind for getting a handout? Do you think the >>>current government would be prepared to go along with your proposal?
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or >>>>$1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringentOn top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >>>>>replied that money was no object ...
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . . >>>>>
Your question appeared to have no relevance to Boot Camps, no
relevance to any government policy, no apparent relevance to young
people, but a brain-fart of your own making. If you really want an
answer to a question you need to define just what you are talking
about.
On 2024-11-22, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Sad really, he is ill.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:26:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:17:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:I made no proposal, I asked a question., Please consider the previous >>>suggestions that you get some English language training.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:That is an interesting concept you are proposing, Tony. Which young >>>>people did you have in mind for getting a handout? Do you think the >>>>current government would be prepared to go along with your proposal?
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or >>>>>$1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringentOn top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >>>>>>replied that money was no object ...
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . . >>>>>>
Your question appeared to have no relevance to Boot Camps, no
relevance to any government policy, no apparent relevance to young
people, but a brain-fart of your own making. If you really want an
answer to a question you need to define just what you are talking
about.
Defining the question is irrelevant as Rich would not understand it. Or not >wish ti understand it.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:26:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was a clear question, I cannot be held responsibe for your terrible English,
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:17:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:I made no proposal, I asked a question., Please consider the previous >>>suggestions that you get some English language training.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:That is an interesting concept you are proposing, Tony. Which young >>>>people did you have in mind for getting a handout? Do you think the >>>>current government would be prepared to go along with your proposal?
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or >>>>>$1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringentOn top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >>>>>>replied that money was no object ...
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . . >>>>>>
Your question appeared to have no relevance to Boot Camps, no
relevance to any government policy, no apparent relevance to young
people, but a brain-fart of your own making. If you really want an
answer to a question you need to define just what you are talking
about.
non-existent comprehension and abusiveness.
I strongly suggest that you get help.
I made no proposal, merely asked a valid question, and you immediately climbed >in with an idiotic and unthinking response.
Questions are not poposlas in English, perhaps in whatever your native tongue >they are the same - is that maybe the explanation for your failure?
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:26:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am not at all off topic. I responded to Lawrence who started the topic, and therefore by definition I am completely on topic.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:26:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was a clear question, I cannot be held responsibe for your terrible >>English,
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:17:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:I made no proposal, I asked a question., Please consider the previous >>>>suggestions that you get some English language training.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:That is an interesting concept you are proposing, Tony. Which young >>>>>people did you have in mind for getting a handout? Do you think the >>>>>current government would be prepared to go along with your proposal?
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:39:04 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:So what price do you put on the wellbeing of our young people. $5 each or >>>>>>$1,000.000 each. I am sure you have a figure in mind. Do tell.
Perhaps it was exempt from the Seymour policy of stringent
cost / benefit analyses and cost estimates before money was spent . . .
On top of which, when Chhour was asked about the expense, she basically >>>>>>>replied that money was no object ...
Your question appeared to have no relevance to Boot Camps, no
relevance to any government policy, no apparent relevance to young >>>people, but a brain-fart of your own making. If you really want an
answer to a question you need to define just what you are talking
about.
non-existent comprehension and abusiveness.
I strongly suggest that you get help.
I made no proposal, merely asked a valid question, and you immediately >>climbed
in with an idiotic and unthinking response.
Questions are not poposlas in English, perhaps in whatever your native tongue >>they are the same - is that maybe the explanation for your failure?
You are off topic - spending $227,000 per person attending a boot camp
is giving the appearance of profligate waste and inadequate planning -
ACT and Seymour have failed again with seeking to rein in spending.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 157:37:55 |
| Calls: | 12,093 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,755 |