INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

The future of Government (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3141 Postby Alan H » June 26th, 2017, 8:09 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3142 Postby Alan H » July 21st, 2017, 3:42 pm

Scotland and Wales are officially challenging May's £1 billion deal with the DUP
The governments of Scotland and Wales are teaming up to launch a formal dispute against Theresa May's deal with the Democratic Unionist Party.

Last month Prime Minister May gave £1 billion additional funding to Northern Ireland in return for the 10 DUP MPs in the House of Commons supporting the Conservative minority government on a "confidence and supply" basis.

This means that the DUP will back the government in major votes like on the budget or confidence votes, in order to keep the day-to-day business of governance in motion.

However, the administrations in Scotland and Wales argue the Barnett Formula means that May's government must also add extra funding to their devolved budgets: £2.9 billion to Scotland and £1.67 billion to Wales, to be exact
:popcorn:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3143 Postby Alan H » July 21st, 2017, 5:47 pm

More popcorn, anyone? Theresa May will no longer meet Nicola Sturgeon one-on-one
Nicola Sturgeon will no longer be granted personal meetings with the Prime Minister as part of a Conservative bid to downgrade the status of the office of First Minister.

The new approach means the SNP leader will instead be referred to Scottish Secretary David Mundell as Theresa May’s team believe “he is at the same level as her”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3144 Postby Alan H » July 22nd, 2017, 11:20 am

This is excellent, by Jay Rayner: Michael Gove asked me to a meeting to share my expertise. I declined. Instead, I’ve given him a piece of my mind.
CONCLUSIONS

I find it extraordinary that, in the correspondence inviting me to the meeting of food experts called by you, your colleague Fiona Gately said that Brexit would not be part of the discussion. She later retracted that verbally; said it was of course something we could discuss. The point I made to her then and I make now is that, where our food supply is concerned, Brexit is the only subject. It is implicated in every single aspect of our food supply chain and risks imperilling the very health of the nation.

A few years ago, when discussing food security in the UK, Lord Cameron of Dillington – a farmer and first head of the Countryside Agency – said Britain was just ‘nine meals from anarchy’. It would take just three days of empty supermarket shelves, just three days of meals missed by hungry children and despairing parents, for the country to descend into massive civil unrest.

When I first heard that statement I regarded it as an interesting and diverting piece of hyperbole. Now it feels to me like a prediction.

Of all the things that were said to me when I was researching my recent an article on the importance of migrant labour to our food supply chain, the one that stayed with me most came from Ian Wright of the Food and Drink Federation: ‘If you can’t feed a country you haven’t got a country’.

Amen to that.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3145 Postby Alan H » July 27th, 2017, 7:59 pm

Another defeat for Grayling: Unison in the Supreme Court: Tribunal Fees, Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law
The Unison case is an important victory for workers who wish to enforce their rights in Employment Tribunals. But the Supreme Court’s judgment also implicates some key principles of UK constitutional law — and raises a question about how far courts can go in upholding such principles.
In 2013, Chris Grayling, the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, relying upon that power, made the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 (the “Fees Order”). Its effect was to require most people who wished to make use of the Employment Tribunals to pay fees; previously, no such fees had been payable.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6478
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3146 Postby animist » July 28th, 2017, 4:21 pm

Alan H wrote:This is excellent, by Jay Rayner: Michael Gove asked me to a meeting to share my expertise. I declined. Instead, I’ve given him a piece of my mind.
CONCLUSIONS

I find it extraordinary that, in the correspondence inviting me to the meeting of food experts called by you, your colleague Fiona Gately said that Brexit would not be part of the discussion. She later retracted that verbally; said it was of course something we could discuss. The point I made to her then and I make now is that, where our food supply is concerned, Brexit is the only subject. It is implicated in every single aspect of our food supply chain and risks imperilling the very health of the nation.

A few years ago, when discussing food security in the UK, Lord Cameron of Dillington – a farmer and first head of the Countryside Agency – said Britain was just ‘nine meals from anarchy’. It would take just three days of empty supermarket shelves, just three days of meals missed by hungry children and despairing parents, for the country to descend into massive civil unrest.

When I first heard that statement I regarded it as an interesting and diverting piece of hyperbole. Now it feels to me like a prediction.

Of all the things that were said to me when I was researching my recent an article on the importance of migrant labour to our food supply chain, the one that stayed with me most came from Ian Wright of the Food and Drink Federation: ‘If you can’t feed a country you haven’t got a country’.

Amen to that.
+1

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3147 Postby Alan H » July 30th, 2017, 1:44 am

[urlhttps://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/29/graduates-anger-nightmare-student-loans-company-complaints]Graduate anger mounts over ‘nightmare’ Student Loans Company[/url]
Fed-up graduates have since told us of being on the receiving end of similar treatment by the SLC, which many claim is not up to the task of administering the huge sums that student loans have become. They also complain of punitive charges and the bureaucratic nightmare of dealing with the lender. Many are furious it has been allowed to change significantly the terms of borrowing and raise interest rates after loans are taken out.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3148 Postby Alan H » August 18th, 2017, 3:57 pm

This muppet is now our Foreign Secretary: By the busload: £940m bill for Boris Johnson's mayoral 'vanity projects'
The scrapping of Boris Johnson’s Garden Bridge project has exposed a £940m bill for his “vanity projects” as London mayor and prompted a senior Labour figure to say her party was partly to blame.

The figure is the total spent on eight projects closely associated with the former mayor, including the pedestrian bridge for the Thames that was abandoned this week, which either failed or whose value for money has been questioned.

His office insisted that the schemes represented important investments and that to describe them as vanity projects was “ignorant and wrong”.

Three Johnson projects ended in failure at a cost of more than £57.5m: the Garden Bridge; the purchase of water cannon; and the Thames estuary airport.

Five others: the new Routemaster bus; hire bikes; the Emirates Air Line cable car; the conversion of the Olympic stadium and the ArcelorMittal Orbit helter-skelter, all did go ahead at a combined cost of more than £900m. They have run into problems after turning out to be far more expensive than promised.
New Routemaster £321.6m

This was another costly Heatherwick-Johnson co-production. Transport for London paid £282.6m for a fleet of 800 of the hop-on, hop-off buses that were billed by Johnson as an environmentally friendly version of the old Routemaster. This was considerably more per bus than the mayor originally suggested. The vehicles were first dubbed “Boris buses” but then “saunas on wheels” after temperatures of 38C were recorded on board. New windows had to be put in at an extra cost of £2m. According to Martin Hoscik, editor of MayorWatch, the new Routemasters “have no market outside London”. Johnson’s office says: “The new Routemasters came out of existing TfL bus budgets and are already classics of UK manufacture and design. They are made in Ballymena and are to be contrasted with Ken Livingstone’s cyclist-menacing bendy buses that were made in Germany.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3149 Postby Alan H » August 23rd, 2017, 7:06 pm

Well, there's a turn up for the books... May abandons pledge to curb boardroom pay (£)
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3150 Postby Alan H » August 24th, 2017, 2:52 pm

Judge condemns Amber Rudd for ignoring orders to release torture victim
A high court judge has said she is “deeply concerned” about the behaviour of Amber Rudd for failing to release a survivor of torture from detention despite repeated court orders requiring her to do so.

On Wednesday Mrs Justice Nicola Davies DBE presided over an emergency high court hearing to examine the home secretary’s delay in releasing an asylum seeker who had been tortured in a Libyan prison with electric shocks and falaka – beating on the soles of the feet.

“The court is deeply concerned,” she said. “Four weeks have elapsed since an order was made.”

She added that the home secretary had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delays in releasing the man from detention.

It is unusual for a high court judge to condemn a senior government minister in such strong terms. In a mark of her disquiet about the secretary of state’s conduct she not only awarded costs against her but also made an indemnity order – something reserved for conduct or circumstances that take a case “out of the norm” and a mark of disapproval by a judge.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3151 Postby Alan H » August 24th, 2017, 5:07 pm

Control over Laws – Why all the fuss about the European Court of Justice?
An example of the UK Government challenging an EU legislative measure before the Court of Justice concerns the controversial Working Time Directive that set down limits on the number of hours that a worker could legally work. In fact, the UK had not voted against the measure but merely abstained. The Commission had also agreed to water down the directive by allowing derogations to allow individual workers to contract out of the time limits. The Court of Justice rejected the UK’s claims that the legislation had an incorrect legal basis in the treaties and was an employment policy measure, rather than one correctly relating to health and safety. But it became a totemic example of claimed EU interference in a sphere of social and employment relations that British Conservative governments sought to insulate from EU control.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3152 Postby Alan H » August 29th, 2017, 6:58 pm

England's fire services suffer 25% cut to safety officers numbers
Fire services in England have lost more than a quarter of their specialist fire safety staff since 2011, a Guardian investigation has found.

Fire safety officers carry out inspections of high-risk buildings to ensure they comply with safety legislation and take action against landlords where buildings are found to be unsafe.

Figures released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act showed the number of specialist staff in 26 fire services had fallen from 924 to 680, a loss of 244 officers between 2011 and 2017.

Between 2011 and 2016, the government reduced its funding for fire services by between 26% and 39%, according to the National Audit Office, which in turn resulted in a 17% average real-terms reduction in spending power.

Warren Spencer, a fire safety lawyer, said the figures showed a “clear culture of complacency” about fire safety.

“The government has tended to take the view that fewer people are dying in fires, fires occur less frequently, and therefore there’s no need to invest in fire prevention. So there’s been a total brain drain in fire safety knowledge and many experienced specialist officers have left the force,” he said.

“But fire safety officers have been saying to me for years that one day, there would be a big fire in a multiple occupancy building, which would make everyone sit up and take notice of the lack of fire safety provision. Tragically, that’s what happened at Grenfell Tower.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3153 Postby Alan H » September 4th, 2017, 11:09 am

Amber Rudd is unfit for purpose: Home Office to pay indemnity costs for defying High Court orders
A High Court judge has expressed “deep concern” at Amber Rudd’s failure to release and accommodate a vulnerable, claimed victim of torture from immigration detention, in breach of several Court orders.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3154 Postby Alan H » September 13th, 2017, 1:09 am

Big Brother state: How May's obsession with immigration turned Britain into a surveillance state
Five years ago, then-home secretary Theresa May said that her aim was to create a "really hostile environment" for undocumented migrants. "What we don't want is a situation where people think that they can come here and overstay because they're able to access everything they need," she said.

She achieved her aim. Today, some of society's most vulnerable people are so afraid of being turned over to the Home Office that they feel unable to access healthcare, find safe accommodation or seek justice for crimes committed against them. And with good reason.

Politics.co.uk previously revealed that the Metropolitan police has been handing over victims and witnesses of crime to the Home Office for immigration enforcement. We have since sent Freedom of Information requests to other major forces, and from the responses we've had back, we now know that Greater Manchester, Northamptonshire, and Suffolk police are all doing the same.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3155 Postby Alan H » September 14th, 2017, 12:16 pm

Can anyone tell if this is satire or not? Jacob Rees-Mogg: increased use of food banks is 'rather uplifting'
Jacob Rees-Mogg has described the increased prevalence of food banks as a “rather uplifting” show of charity, arguing the only reason for the rise in their use is that the former Labour government did not tell people they existed.

“I think there is good within food banks and the real reason for the rise in numbers is that people know that they’re there, and Labour deliberately wouldn’t tell them,” the Conservative backbencher told LBC radio.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 628
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3156 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » September 16th, 2017, 1:45 am

I suppose this is of interest only to a few, but I shall post it anyway:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... =firefox-b

It concerns one woman's attempt to contest a decision to stop her Tax Credits and to saddle her with a substantial overpayment.
Here are a few highlights:

1. Well, here we go yet again.
2. I used the phrase “Well, here we go again” with a sense of frustration, bordering
on despair, to open my decision in NI v HMRC [2015] UKUT 160 (AAC), a case in
which I criticised Her Majesty Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for both its decision-
making processes and its conduct of appeals in relation to tax credits claims. That
phrase has been echoed in other tribunal jurisdictions where HMRC’s conduct has
come under similar critical scrutiny:


An honourable exception
5. I should also make it clear that I exempt Mr A Hignett of HMRC, who has had
conduct of this appeal before the Upper Tribunal for the Respondent, from my
criticisms of HMRC. Mr Hignett’s written submission to the Upper Tribunal is a model
of clarity and helpfulness. It is a shame (or, being frank, a disgrace) that the same
standards are not always achieved in HMRC responses to appeals at first instance
before the FTT. Given that only about 1-2% of all FTT decisions are appealed to the
Upper Tribunal, and given that many appellants are unrepresented, the FTT judiciary
must be alert to the need to interrogate HMRC written responses with a combination
of studied scepticism and searching if not anxious scrutiny.


In the parallel universe that is tax credits adjudication, the file does not actually include something as
elementary or fundamental as the actual decision notice. As HMRC’s original response to the FTT
appeal explained, the HMRC computer cannot provide a copy of a decision notice – only the claimant
can do that. So, in a classic Orwellian doublespeak, the response continues: “HMRC has not omitted to
include the decision notices from the bundle; it is simply unable to provide copies”. How are we
supposed to respond to this? “Oh well, that’s alright then.” Who designed this computer system? Did
anyone think to check it was compatible with basic tenets of good public administration, let alone the principles of administrative jusice?


Second, regrettably on past experience the fact of the matter is I am not at all
confident that all relevant evidence was presented to the Tribunal by HMRC. In
that context I note that the original submission to the Tribunal, dated 25 February
2015, stated (p.C, para 17) that the Appellant did not respond to HMRC’s letter
of 7 January 2015. I am not at all sure that is right, given her letter of February 5,
2015 (see p.29 and handwritten query). I also recognise that the HMRC letter of
3 October 2013 understandably confused both the Appellant and the Tribunal.
9. In those circumstances I think it is only fair to give permission to appeal.’
23. I readily admit that the statement in the grant of permission that “regrettably on
past experience the fact of the matter is I am not at all confident that all relevant
evidence was presented to the Tribunal by HMRC” was ‘economical with the
actuality’. The truth was I had no confidence whatsoever that HMRC had complied
with its disclosure obligations [...]
( My bolding. LMoG)

This is the latest in a string of judgments from Judge Wikely ( and others ) which flay HMRC for incompetence. shockingly poor record-keeping and something that looks perilously close to a culture of indifference to, or contempt for, facts and evidence.

I have confidence, mind you, in our institutions: they can sink a good deal lower.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3157 Postby Alan H » September 18th, 2017, 12:28 am

Universal credit is in 'total disarray', says Labour
Universal credit is in “total disarray”, Labour has said, after a government study found that lengthy benefit payment waiting times were causing claimants to run up hundreds of pounds in debt and rent arrears.

Labour joined welfare charities in calling for the planned roll-out of the benefit to be paused in the light of mounting evidence that design and administration problems are causing financial hardship for vulnerable and low-income households.

One in four new universal credit claimants waited more than 42 days for a first payment, while nearly half of families said moving on to the benefit had led them to fall behind with rent for the first time.


Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Debbie Abrahams, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: “The government’s flagship universal credit programme is in total disarray. It is unacceptable that one in four claimants are waiting more than six weeks to receive support, alongside mounting debts and arrears among recipients.

“I have written to the secretary of state requesting that he immediately halt the roll-out of universal credit to contain the misery being caused by the disastrous mishandling of this programme.”

The work and pensions select committee has launched an inquiry into universal credit after hearing evidence from landlords, charities and tenants about extensive problems associated with it.

Frank Field, the committee chair, said: “Everything I have seen so far, on the committee and in my constituency, points to fundamental flaws in the operation of universal credit, which must be resolved before the full service roll-out proceeds.”

The Department for Work and Pensions evaluation found that 42% of all claimant families surveyed said the wait for a first universal credit payment to be processed and DWP administrative errors were the cause of their rent arrears.

Four in 10 households were in rent arrears eight weeks after the claim was made, with nearly one in three still in arrears four months later. One in five owed £1,000 or more. Four out of five said they had never been in arrears before.

Half of new claimants needed a DWP loan to help pay for living expenses such as food and gas bills while they waited for a first payment, while nearly one-third borrowed cash from family or friends. About one in 10 took out loans with payday or doorstep lenders.

The department pointed to encouraging findings in the evaluation suggesting that overall, families moving on to universal credit were coping well with monthly payments and happy with the support provided by jobcentre staff in helping them find work or increase their working hours.

A DWP spokesperson said: “Universal credit is getting more people into work than the old system. It mirrors the way most people in work are paid, helping to ease the transition into employment.

“The majority of claimants are comfortable managing their budgets, and for people who need extra support, advance payments are available.”

However, the evaluation found the experience of universal credit was much less positive for low-income families, workers with irregular work patterns, lone parents, claimants with a disability or long-term illness, and people who had difficulty accessing or using the internet.

The government study confirmed Citizens Advice research published this week that found universal credit could push claimants into serious debt. The charity’s chief executive, Gillian Guy, said: “It is clearer than ever that the government must pause the roll-out of universal credit and fix the problems with this benefit.”

Universal credit was introduced in 2013 to simplify the social security system by rolling six main benefits into one. However, management failings and IT problems have left it years behind schedule, while budget cuts mean millions of working families moving on to the benefit will be worse off.

New universal credit claimants wait a minimum of 42 days for a first payment. This comprises a seven day “waiting period” before a claim can be made, a one-month assessment period to determine how much the claimant should be paid, and a further week for the payment to go through.

In practice, however, charities say many claimants wait even longer for a first payment. People on low incomes often have few or no savings to tide them over during the waiting period, forcing them to turn to debt and food banks.

The DWP has stood by the 42-day wait, arguing that it is needed to get claimants on to a monthly payment schedule, and newly unemployed claimants should expect to have one month’s salary to fall back on. However, charities say one in four workers are not paid monthly, meaning they have to survive for at least six weeks on two weeks’ pay.

Earlier this year, the Trussell Trust reported that food bank referral rates were running at more than double the national average in areas where universal credit had been rolled out. The trust said benefit delays led to debt, mental illness, rent arrears and eviction.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3158 Postby Alan H » September 21st, 2017, 10:35 am

Samim Bigzad: Amber Rudd could be jailed for contempt of court after Home Office defies judges, barrister says
Critics are calling for Amber Rudd to resign after the Home Office appeared to violate court rulings ordering a deported asylum seeker to be returned to the UK.

One immigration barrister claimed the Home Secretary could be jailed over the case, which culminated in a lengthy battle in the Court of Appeal.

Barrister Rachel Francis said the wrangling over Samim Bigzad’s fate had put him at the centre “of a growing constitutional crisis that could land Amber Rudd in court for contempt and ultimately, in prison”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3159 Postby Alan H » September 21st, 2017, 10:56 am

Local councils blame Tory cuts for dramatic surge in homelessness
Government benefit cuts are to blame for soaring levels of homelessness, local councils and housing providers have said.

The number of people being declared homeless has increased by more than a third since 2010, while the number of people sleeping rough on the streets has surged by even more: up 134 per cent since the Conservatives came to power.

A string of Government welfare changes – including cuts to housing benefit and the introduction of the benefit cap – have led to the dramatic increase, according to the organisations charged with tackling the crisis.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3160 Postby Alan H » September 26th, 2017, 4:03 pm

Foriners not welcome here: 'Leave UK immediately': scientist is latest victim of Home Office blunder
The Home Office is still sending out letters telling lawfully resident immigrants in Britain they must leave the country, a month after the home secretary had to apologise for “an unfortunate error” in mistakenly informing 100 EU nationals that they faced possible deportation.

The Home Office had to issue a further apology on Monday to a research scientist, who received a letter out of the blue on Friday telling him his driving licence was being revoked and he “should take steps to leave the UK immediately”.

The Immigration Enforcement letter, in which his name was spelled incorrectly, warned Dr Mohsen Danaie that he could face six months in prison, forcible removal from the UK and a ban on returning to Britain for up to 10 years if he did not leave voluntarily. It was issued by the interventions and sanctions directorate of the Home Office.
Danaie holds Canadian-Iranian joint citizenship. He is an electron microscopy scientist who has worked since October 2016 at Diamond Light Source, the UK’s national synchrotron, based at Harwell science and innovation campus in Oxfordshire. This particle accelerator has been described as the UK’s answer to the Large Hadron Collider. He has a work visa valid until September 2019 and previously worked at Oxford University’s department of materials.

Danaie went public with his case after the Guardian highlighted the introduction of “hostile environment” immigration status bank account checks last week and an assessment by the chief inspector of borders that there was a 10% error rate in Home Office records used for some forms of enforcement action.

“I happen to be in that 10% statistic. Despite having a valid work visa, I received this letter,” he said. “It hurts on so many levels. They even have a typo in my name. Such disarray is astonishing in an office responsible for security.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3161 Postby Alan H » October 3rd, 2017, 7:17 pm

Unmarried Men Are ‘A Problem’ For Society, Says Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith
‘These boys’ will go looking for ‘the alternative on the internet’ if they don’t tie the knot, says IDS.

Unmarried men often grow into “dysfunctional” human beings and become “a problem” for society, Iain Duncan Smith has said.

Speaking at a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, the Tory MP also claimed cohabiting couples have “inherently unstable” relationships.

He went on to claim men out of wedlock were “released to do all the things they wouldn’t normally do” such as committing crimes, drinking too much, taking drugs and fathering multiple children.

Couples living together were more likely to break up as the arrangement “suits the man” more than the woman, he went on to claim, and if men were not taught of the importance of marriage they would develop “low value for women” and seek out “the alternative on the internet”.

“Cohabitation is a very different relationship from marriage,” he said. “It is inherently unstable. The level of breakup is staggering high compared to marriage, and for the most part, these relationships break up upon arrival of a child.”

He went on: “The answer I think is because cohabitation suits one of the partners more than the other. Almost invariably it suits the man, because they have to make good on their commitment and when that commitment is facing them they then withdraw.

“In marriage, having made that commitment, the child becomes a focus for your responsibility and you commit more. They commit automatically once the child arrives.”

He went on: “Out there, these boys particularly, when left without the concept of what [marriage/commitment] is about will find the alternative on the internet.

“And the alternative on the internet, now so readily available, is about abusive sex and low value for women. That is where they will go.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests