The Broken Britain Blog

WHO IS TO BLAME FOR A FRACTURED BRITAIN?

2012-02-21T17:05:00.000Z

The National Statistics Office has revealed that one in eight people now living in Britain has been born elsewhere and in some areas this is causing strain on essential services such as schools and health. It is also causing long established communities to fragment particularly in areas such as Luton, Bradford and Leicester where large influxes of immigrants have congregated that do not speak English and will not readily integrate into British society. It has also created ghettos in some parts where white British feel ostracised.

In an excellent article in the Daily Telegraph Ruth Dudley Foster examines the issues confronting multi-culture Britain. She argues a case for citizens who feel their communities have been changed by too many immigrants arriving at the same time that have no intention of speaking English or by integrating into our society.

This is a common problem that I can associate with. When one of my neighbours temporarily moved to Canada they rented their house to a family from Lithuania. Outwardly these people seem to be perfectly reasonable, especially since they cause no problems for anyone, but they have isolated themselves from others living around them. They do not speak English and therefore live on the outside of our society unable to communicate with others that cannot speak their language. While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this, there is a feeling that the ethos of what was once a close-knit community this has been eradicated.

Click here to read the full text of Ruth Dudley Edwards's article.

CORRUPT COP JAILED AGAIN

2012-02-14T12:42:00.002Z

One of the worst cases of a police officer abusing the powers vested in him occurred in February 2010 when a Commander of the Metropolitan Police, Ali Dizaei was sentenced to four years at Southwark Crown Court for ‘misconduct in a public office and perverting the course of justice.’ Two of the years of his sentence were to be spent in prison; the other two on licence.

This might appear to be a mild sentence for Britain’s most senior Asian police officer, who had formerly been president of the Metropolitan Black Police Association. This is relevant because Dizaei had consistently criticised senior colleagues for presiding over and encouraging racism within the Met. (BBC News 8/2/2010). Ironically his transfer to the Metropolitan Police and promotion to superintendant came in the same year that the Force was accused of institutional racism after the murder of Stephen Lawrence. After arriving in his new post, Dizaei accused the force of ‘ethnic cleansing’ and by using ‘cultural biased tests to pick white officers for senior ranks.’ Under the title of Operation Helios, Dizaei was suspected of perverting the course of justice, misconduct in a public office and making false expenses claims, as far back as 2000 in an investigation costing £2.2m that was unrelated to the case for which he was jailed. After being suspended from duty for two years on full pay, he was brought to trial at the Old Bailey but cleared of all charges in the previous case. Other serving police officers had claimed that Ali Dizaei It has been a permanent thorn in their side and the Met came under criticism when they reportedly paid him £80,000 in damages after he had threatened to sue them for discrimination. He had also threatened to bring a similar unrelated action in December 2008. The former Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair apologised after the case and said the inquiry had caused “considerable damage” to the force. Dizaei claimed there had been a campaign to: “destroy my life and my career” and accused very senior colleagues of spreading a “cancer of racism.” In 2006, after two Muslim brothers were questioned after an anti-terrorism raid, he questioned the need for ethnic profiling of airline passengers and said: “What you are suggesting is that we should have a new offence in this country called ‘travelling whilst Asian’.”

In the 2010 case Dizaei was found guilty of assaulting and falsely arresting an Iraqi man in a dispute over a bill for £600 for work the man had done on the police officer’s personal website. The man claimed he had approached Dizaei to ask for the money he was owed after seeing him drunk and dancing at a Persian restaurant. Dizaei produced a pair of handcuffs and arrested the man, later claiming that the Iranian had assaulted him and left threats on his telephone answering machine. Eight weeks after being jailed, Ali Dizaei was sacked from the Metropolitan Police although he will still receive his generous pension unless the Home Secretary intervenes to prevent it. In addition the tax payer is likely to foot the bill to cover the £60,000 costs of his case because Dizaei’s lawyers claim he has no money. In May 2011 Ali Dizaei was bailed and was granted a re-trial. Subsequently the previous verdict was overturned on appeal as ‘unsafe’ and Dizaei was released. At the time he told a press conference that he had left jail with “my integrity completely intact”. Yet at the retrial a second jury failed to believe the evidence and Dizaei was found guilty of corruption for the second time and was sent back to prison. It is comforting to know that this controversial character’s police career is now well and truly over.

Read the latest news on this story from the Press Association

ALWAYS CHECK YOUR RECEIPTS BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT

2011-12-16T14:18:00.006Z

This was recently sent to me and with Christmas coming up it is worth reading the contents because this scam can be used against any of us.

I bought a bunch of stuff, over £150, & I glanced at my receipt as the cashier was handing me the bags. I saw a cash-back of £40. I told her I didn't request a cash back & to delete it. She said I'd have to take the £40 because she couldn't delete it. I told Her to call a supervisor. Supervisor came & said I'd have to take it.. I said NO! Taking the £40 would be a cash advance against my Credit card & I wasn't paying interest on a cash advance!!!!! If they couldn't delete it then they would have to delete the whole order. So the supervisor had the cashier delete the whole order & re-scan everything! The second time I looked at the electronic pad before I signed & a cash-back of £20 popped up. At that point I told the cashier & she deleted it. The total came out right. The cashier agreed that the Electronic Pad must be defective.

Obviously the cashier knew the electronic pad was defective because she NEVER offered me the £40 at the beginning. Can you imagine how many people went through before me & at the end of her shift how much money she pocketed?

Just to alert everyone. My co worker went to Milford , Sainsburys last week. She had her items rung up by the cashier. The cashier hurried her along and didn't give her a receipt. She asked the cashier for a receipt and the cashier was annoyed and gave it to her. My co worker didn't look at her receipt until later that night. The receipt showed that she asked for £20 cash back. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR CASH BACK!

My co-worker called Sainsburys who investigated but could not see the cashier pocket the money. She then called her niece who works for the bank and her niece told her this. This is a new scam going on. The cashier will key in that you asked for cash back and then hand it to her friend who is the next person in the queue.

Please, please, please check your receipts right away when using credit or debit cards!
This is NOT limited to Sainsburys; they are one of the largest retailers so they have the most incidents. I am adding to this. My husband and I were in Sainsburys and paying with credit card when my husband went to sign the credit card signer he just happen to notice there was a £20 cash back added. He told the cashier that he did not ask nor want cash back and she said this machine has been messing up and she canceled it. We really didn't think anything of it until we read this email.

I wonder how many "seniors" have been, or will be, "stung" by this one????

To make matters worse ..THIS SCAM CAN BE DONE ANYWHERE, AT ANY RETAIL OR WHOLESALE LOCATION!!!

BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT........CHECK YOUR RECEIPT!!!!!

ARE DEFENCE CUTS PUTTING THE UK AT RISK?

2011-11-03T19:56:00.001Z

It may sound astonishing but the hard truth is that since October the Royal Navy has not had a single vessel defending the British Isles. Since the Strategic Defence Review of last year, Britain's fleet of frigates and destoyers was cut from 23 to 19 despite previous Conservative claims that we needed a navy of no less than 40 ships.Many believe that the defence cuts imposed by the former Defence Secretary, Dr Liam Fox went too far and this latest revellation will support this view.

The reason that there are no ships available to protect us is because ten warships had been deployed to the Mediterranean to support our involvement in Libya. It is small comfort to know that most of these are now on their way back, but while we were defending other people's causes the UK was not being adequately protected. It is shoddy of our Government to leave Britain so badly protected while money continues to be pumped into military activities in Libya and Afghanistan and when the foreign aid budget is being substantially increased and we are still paying vast sums to India, Pakistan and China. India will be receiving £1bn in aid over three years despite having a growing economy and a space and nuclear weapons programme. Although there is no immediate threat from any foreign country, an attack from a terrorist source continues to pose a real risk.Yet, the Government flaunts Britain to the World as a major power when in reality we have very little capability to defend our islands. Should the Falkland Islands, as an example, come under a renewed threat of invasion from Argentina, which is not beyond the realms of probability, Britain simply would not have the resources to defend it.

Cameron has to be asked why the interests of other countries continues to be considered as more important than the needs of our own citizens?

Read STEPHEN GLOVER'S report in the Daily Mail

FAIR FUEL UK CAMPAIGN TO BE DEBATED ON TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER

2011-11-03T19:45:00.000Z

The Fair Fuel campaign succeeded in gathering more than 100,000 signatures to prompt the Government to debate the issues. This will be taking place on Tuesday 15 November.

Please lobby your MP to attend.

BERCOW IS THE LATEST TO HAVE HIS SNOUT IN THE TROUGH

2011-11-03T14:17:00.003Z

Kirsty Walker has revealed in the Daily Mail today how the Speaker of the House, John Bercow has been blowing public money to pay for two suits. According to Ms Walker's report and information she has obtained under the FOI Act, Bercow spent £3,200 on a morning suit for ceremonial events, such as the royal wedding, and £485 on a white tie and tails to wear at state dinners. This raises the issue of why somebody earning £140,000 a year cannot be expected to buy his own suits more especially as the Prime Minister pays for his own suits. Bercow's expenses is a further example of politicians putting two fingers up to taxpayers and Cameron should demand that he pays this money back and be brought to task over his excessive spending.

Bercow also spent £14,000 on chauffeur driven cars during his first six months in office and has spent £45,000 on refurbishments at his grace and favour apartment in Westminster Palace that he shares with his wife Sally, three children and nanny. This included a sofa costing £7,500.

Read the full story

FORMER MP ELLIOTT MORLEY RELEASED FROM JAIL AFTER SERVING ONLY A QUARTER OF HIS SENTENCE

2011-09-20T11:53:00.002+01:00

If the sentence served by former Environment Minister Elliot Morley is anything to go by, it seems that crime can pay – at least when it is committed by someone who is privileged. The ex- Scunthorpe MP was sentenced to 16 months in jail last May after robbing taxpayers of £30,000 in bogus expenses claims. Now he is free after serving a mere fraction of his sentence.

He served his few months at HM Ford open prison in West Sussex – no doubt being given every privilege afforded under the system and safe from persecution by hardened criminals. Had he been an unemployed youth and stolen money from an individual in order to buy food it is likely that the punishment would have been more severe –and he would have been sentenced to serve his time in an ordinary prison. But the sentence given to Morley suggests that by defrauding the state when you are in a position of trust is less of a crime. The adopted son of Pink Floyd guitarist Dave Gilmour was handed the same length of sentence for rioting and tearing a union flag from the Cenotaph – not a commendable thing to do I grant you – but it will be interesting to see how long he spends behind bars.

Morley was the first former minister to be sentenced after he had faked mortgage payments for his home in North Lincolnshire between 2004 and 2007. During his trial the judge – Mr Justice Saunders referred to Morley as being ‘blatantly dishonest’ yet this was not reflected in the lenient sentence handed down. It is a matter of conjecture whether the sentence would have been more severe had Morley been an ordinary person - not an MP - but his early release does not send out a very good message about the fairness of our legal system and this is bound to give rise to public anger.

After Margaret Moran’s sobbing appearance in court this week charged with 21 offences – even if she is found guilty it appears she will have little to fear by the time sentence is passed down.

How long did the guilty politicians serve. See the Telegraph

DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSPECT YOUR COUNCIL'S BOOKS?

2011-09-02T13:00:00.007+01:00

Most councils will not openly promote the fact that the law requires them to make their accounts available for scrutiny. But they are and many councils have subscribed to a scheme make them open to you online - but here's the catch - THEY ONLY HAVE TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE FOR 20 DAYS A YEAR.

This seems to be nonsense to me. Why aren't ALL councils required to make them available online and permanently?

Nevertheless, it does give you the right to see where every penny of your council tax is being spent - not just amounts of £500 or more. Unless you have an eye for accounts you may find it difficult to understand how the information has been compiled but you will probably still be able to uncover some interesting - and often seemingly unnecessary spending sprees.

Many people do not realise that they have a right to know what councils are spending your money on. To assist you with finding out, an online search engine has been created to tell you when you have a right to inspect the information that should link directly to information provided by more than 280 local authorities. Despite the law stating that councils must provide this information, not all have signed up to be included on the search engine. Perhaps they should.

If you want to find out when you can inspect your council's accounts online

I am grateful to the Tax Payers' Alliance for releasing this information.

WE CANNOT MAKE EXCUSES FOR RIOTING - BUT PARLIAMENT MUST TACKLE SOCIAL DEPRIVATION

2011-08-13T18:33:00.006+01:00

Additional material as recommended reading: 'The Moral Decay of our Society is as bad at the top as at the bottom' by Peter Oborne

The most poignant scene that came out of the dreadful violence of the last week has been the highly emotive and dignified speech made by Tariq Jahan, the father of Haroon, one of the three men senselessly mowed down in Winson Green, who called for sanity and to urge people not to seek revenge for the tragic events that resulted in his son's death. We must all learn something from this.

The rioting that occurred across our nation has been dreadful and can never be condoned in any way. We must make every effort to ensure that the scenes we witnessed in Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Tottenham and many other parts of the country, including some that never made the headlines, will never be repeated. In view of the scope and extend of the violence it is a miracle that so few have been killed or seriously injured but hundreds have become the innocent victims of indiscriminate vandalism and arson that cannot be tolerated.

The debates will continue long into the future and differences of opinion will prevail over the causes of the shocking devastation and the ways that we should be dealing with mindless acts of violence. But the rioting that took place has long been expected and there have been plenty of warnings that civil unrest of this magnitude had been festering just beneath the surface for some considerable time. Community leaders from areas that are particularly vulnerable have been telling the authorities of this but as usual nobody was prepared to take any notice.

When armed police shot Mark Duggan dead in Tottenham it was initially seen as the spark that lit the fuse for the rioting that followed and the way that the police subsequently handled things has to be questioned. While this detonated the devastation that occurred in that part of north London, this cannot be seen as the root cause for the spread of the rioting that followed elsewhere. There are of course plenty of other underlying causes that are causing major concerns, but none of them are an excuse for the events that took place. A high rate of youth unemployment, poor housing on deprived inner city estates, and a lack of future opportunities are all being blamed. But we have to be careful - not everyone who is out of work and not all of those living in deprived housing took to the streets. Much of the trouble, in Salford for example, was perpetrated by career criminals while elsewhere opportunists joined in with the flow by grabbing the free booty that was on offer from destroyed business premises. It has become evident from the numbers that have been so far charged that many looters were employed; they come from varying backgrounds and some have never been in trouble before. So, can we assume from this that some of those that became embroiled in the rioting merely saw it as a chance for instant gratification, to acquire high value goods for free with, so they thought, little chance of being caught, while others saw it as a way of getting, to use that over-used description - a 'buzz'?

We will be wrong to be flippant and we must not ignore the existence of very real underlying factors and while just punishment has to be dealt to those that offended we should not let this cloud our judgement. It is easy for politicians to cast blame on others when in reality they, and the police, should be looking at their own conduct. Many youngsters, not necessarily those involved in the rioting, have suggested the way MPs abused their expenses was a factor. This has led to a view that 'if the politicians can get away with things - then so too can we'. While a handful of errant MPs have been jailed many feel far too many who were 'playing the system' such as the former Luton MP Margaret Moran should have been severely punished and this has caused a deep resentment that will not evaporate particularly with those are struggling to put food on their tables.

It is no surprise that a large number of rioters, but by no means all, were coloured. For as long as I can remember, the police have been accused of racism and there is plenty of evidence of their heavy-handedness when dealing with the young from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds. With the gang culture that prevails there is some justification to this and there is no easy way of tackling the problem but one way might be to identify the reasons why gang culture is flourishing. The police have also been severely criticised, again with plenty of justification, over the way they tackled the rioting as it unfolded in some areas by a public who felt they were not being adequately protected. Victims have blamed the police for standing back as spectators while rioters looted shops in front of them and it has been suggested in some quarters that this may have been a deliberate ploy by some forces as a form of protest against the cuts in manpower the Government proposes. I do not agree with this assumption and the reason the police appeared helpless was because they were vastly outnumbered and poorly protected. This has led to a call for water cannon and baton rounds to be used in cases of civil disorder.

In some towns TV footage showed the police to be pitifully poorly equipped and even unprepared for the levels of violence that occurred. This has probably been caused by the fact that too few officers patrol on foot any longer causing a detachment between the police and the community. For some time there has also been a growing lack of confidence in the police. As many members of the public can relate, there have been numerous cases where the police have failed to respond to 999 calls. Indeed, during the height of the disturbances this week one Asian shopkeeper in Croydon spoke out on television to tell how after being subjected to violence and looting he had called the police three times only to be told that he was 'wasting their time'. If this is true then it can only be described as disgraceful. Another witness to the rioting told reporters how it had taken the police well over an hour to arrive on the scene of some of the worst rioting. If this is the kind of reaction we can expect from the police it can come as no surprise when local residents and business owners group together in order to try and protect their property. We have seen this already with Turkish Kurds who successfully defended their businesses in Dalston; residents who gathered in force in Enfield, Sikhs in Southall and Asians in Winson Green, Birmingham that sadly witnessed the deaths of three young Muslims who were run down by a car. Forming vigilante groups is a dangerous course to follow but when the public feel their homes, businesses and even their lives are in danger, what else can they do? The Government and the police can criticise all they like but if they are unable to offer no alternative self protection of one's home and business becomes a natural reaction.

While emotions run high it is also easy to jump to the wrong conclusions and for politicians to make hasty decisions. There has been talk of banning social networking and introducing curfews as a means of controlling young people. But we have seen in the past that by banning guns after rogue gunmen ran amok murdering innocent victims in Dunblane and Hungerford has not solved the problem of shootings, nor has the Dangerous Dog Act introduced twenty-years ago prevented people being mauled. Nevertheless, it is inexcusable that it took until Thursday for Parliament to be re-called, yet it took no time at all for leading politicians and their entourages to arrive at the riot torn districts in order to score political points. The public are tired of rhetoric and we certainly have no time for the childish squabbling that has evolved between the Government and the police authorities over who is owed the credit for returning the country to some kind of order.

The public is also tired of hearing the over-used mantra uttered by David Cameron that 'lessons will be learnt'. The sad thing is that our leaders never seem to learn much at all and they continue by ignoring the problems created by an increasing divide that exists between the rich and the extremely poor. This in itself cannot be used as an excuse to smash up and burn communities and the majority of the poor would never dream of becoming involved in rioting, but this does not mean plenty of people are angry because they are simply not be listened to as their lives fall deeper into poverty.

If we are to prevent anarchy first of all politicians have to start listening to the problems individuals are facing and begin to address their concerns. Successive governments have failed to do this and the Alliance does not look like being any different. It must also begin with politicians learning to appreciate how ordinary people, once regarded as the 'working class' (but now so often the unemployed) are expected to live. The class barriers remain strong and have to be broken down and although nobody will profess this will be easy, this is the only way that future rioting of an even greater scale can be prevented. Although Britain is broken in so many ways - we must not give up hope. It is for the majority of good people in this country to unite to lobby Parliament to force change. The good and bad of what people power can achieve has been obvious this week. On the positive side we should be proud of the tireless efforts and unselfishness of the volunteers that pulled together from all age and ethnic groups to repair the damage caused by the bad elements. This showed a remarkable public spirit that proved that how the British people can unite in a way that brought some sanity back to our nation.

READ PANIC ON THE STREETS OF LONDON - by Penny Red

THE PRICE OF FUEL IS CRIPPLING THE COUNTRY

2011-07-15T12:07:00.002+01:00

Most of the price we pay for petrol or diesel is tax. FairFuelUK recently carried out research showing that motorists pay excess taxes of around £18 billion over and above the cost they would reasonably be expected to pay for things like road building. This is especially tough for families and businesses as it is now more expensive than ever to do the school run, go for the weekly shop, or for small business owners to go about their work. It also hurts the UK’s competitiveness: European rates of fuel duty are up to 24p per litre less than in the UK. There was a 1p per litre cut in fuel duty in the Budget four months ago but that was little more than a gesture to long-suffering motorists.

The campaign FairFuelUK has been set up to try and change this. Robert Halfon, MP for Harlow, has also set up the FairFuelUK All Party Working Group in the House of Commons. On Wednesday, the group rolled a car down Whitehall to ‘push’ for lower pump prices and draw attention to the issue. The group then delivered a letter outlining their concerns to David Cameron at Number 10. We joined them to show our support for lower fuel taxes.

If you think that petrol and diesel prices are too high then add your voice to their campaign. They have a petition on their website which you can sign here. Additionally, you can write to your MP and ask if they are joining Mr Halfon’s FairFuelUK All Party Working Group.

A GREAT WAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE CRIME

2011-07-14T12:25:00.000+01:00

What is the Government now doing to carry out their plans to remove shirkers and fraudsters from the benefits system?

The entire system is bizarre. The most deserving cases - those that have worked most of their lives and have been made redundant - or those that ran their own businesses that have failed, get little or no help while the scoundrels and fraudsters that have always been intent on living off the state will continue to do so. The Government's promise of action to remove the long term unemployed and those claiming they cannot work because of incapacities is nothing more than a load of hot air. I notice that IDS, who initially had been very vocal about his plans, appears to have gone silent now that action to prevent fraudsters from claiming benefits has been overtaken by more newsworthy issues.

The Government appears to be missing a fundamental point. The public understands but the Government fails to appreciate that nobody will be prepared to employ anyone who has been 'working the system' by claiming long term benefits and with no intention of ever taking a job. Most of these are unemployable, if not undesirable, so what jobs does the Government think they could do?

Politicians must be realistic about this and face up to reality. If those who simply have no intention of finding work have their benefits stopped - where will they get the money to buy their cigarettes and booze? The only way will be for them to sponge off others or to commit crime - probably both.

BRITAIN'S BOSSES SCARED OF HIRING OLDER WORKERS

2011-07-14T12:07:00.001+01:00

It was announced yesterday that the number of unemployed has dropped yet those claiming Job Seekers' Allowance has increased. This sounds like a bit of a conundrum to me and suggests this is another attempt by the Government to cover up the truth. Do they really know how many people are now unemployed? I don't think so, and this is because thousands will either not be claiming Job Seekers' Allowance or, more to the point, they no longer qualify. This includes plenty of well qualified middle-aged men and women who are being ignored by employers yet are unable to claim Job Seekers' Allowance once they have been out-of-work for more than a year.

I believe employers are largely to blame for the high number of professional people who cannot find work. Ageism, in spite of legislation devised to prevent it, is still rife and it easy to use any of many excuses to mask the real reason for dismissing a job application. The majority of unemployed senior people will concur with this view and will be familiar with 'too experienced', 'the standard of applicants was extremely high' or 'you do not quite match our requirements' as being tantamount to being 'too old'. But there is another issue. Experience usually comes with age and this means that thousands of extremely capable people are being by-passed by companies because of a fear factor. The chances are that when an experienced older person applies for a job his or her application will be scrutinised by somebody much younger. A more experienced applicant can present a challenge to less experienced employers that could create a situation that undermine their authority. This may be intentional or psychological - but often those that short list job applicants feel it may be better to cast aside anyone that could pose such a threat. There is evidence of this all around. We only need look at just one aspect of business - that of customer service - to see how poor it has become in many organisations. It is my belief that this is because the leadership in many companies is appalling and that many of the people they employ lack the experience or training to do their jobs properly.

UNPAID COUNCIL TAX & NON DOMESTIC RATES & THE ROLE OF BAILIFFS

2011-07-14T09:57:00.006+01:00

This important article is republished from the Consumer Action Group newsletter.

We are in the grips of the worst recession that we have ever seen. Many people have lost their jobs and many more jobs are under threat. The astonishing price of fuel has meant that we are limiting the amount of driving that we do, food prices have once again increased this month and just last week, we heard that electricity prices will increase by 20% this winter. The High Streets are not immune. Woolworth’s were the first big name to go out of business at the start of the recession with well known names such as Moben Kitchens, Habitat etc closing down. Families are unable to afford a holiday and this is confirmed by the profit warning from Thomas Cook Travel. Families are really struggling financially and this is leading to many of them finding themselves in arrears with their council tax and small businesses that struggling to survive are finding themselves in the same position with non domestic rates (NNDR).
Concerns at the amount initially requested by the bailiffIt is very rare that the debtor attends court and therefore, many people are unsure of the actual amount of the Liability Order (which will include a summons fee). When visited by a bailiff they accept the figure being demanded by him and in so many cases where enquiries are made with the local authority it is established that the amount of the Liability Order is significantly less than the amount stated by the bailiff. When challenged, the bailiff will “claim” that he is entitled to charge an “enforcement fee” (which is incorrect). It is vital that debtors contact the local authority for confirmation of the amount of the Liability Order passed to their agents.

Charging £42.50 to the account before an initial visit has been made.

This has been “industry practice” for many years. The statutory regulations provide that a bailiff can charge an initial 1st visit fee of £24.50 for “attending to levy” (where no levy was made) and for a 2nd such visit, a fee of £18.00 can be applied. Also, unless a bailiff is able to levy upon goods, he cannot charge any further fees.

Refusing to provide details of the charges applied to an account.The statutory regulations are very clear in that they provide that “the person levying distress on behalf of a local authority must provide to the debtor a copy of Schedule 5 (the statutory fee scale) and a “memorandum setting out the appropriate amount”. Many bailiffs refuse to provide a breakdown of fees and instead, state that the debtor must write to the company for this information. This is simply dreadful. It cannot be right that the debtor should be forced to pay first....and ask questions later.

The charging of an “enforcement fee”.The charging of an “enforcement fee” is becoming routine and is of great concern as there is no provision for such a fee in the statutory fee scale, and in reality, it is really an “attending to remove” fee which cannot be charged unless a prior levy has been made on goods.
Allowing a bailiff to come into your home to levy upon goods.I have never said this before....but you should not allow a bailiff to come into your home to levy upon goods.

If you already have financial difficulties, allowing the bailiff to come into your home will incur you in significant additional fees. This is because, once the bailiff is in your home, he will levy upon your goods and you will then be liable for both a levy fee and walking possession fee. Also, only after the bailiff has levied upon your goods, will he decided how much he will accept from you each month. Many times, the payment arrangement is set by him at a figure that is far too high and this will ensure that you default. The bailiff will then legally be allowed to charge an “attending to remove” fee to the account.

Insisting payments are made on a particular date each month.If you call a bailiff company to make a payment arrangement on for instance; the 20th of the month, they will expect that all future payments are received in cleared funds by the same date each month and if you are just one day late, this is used by all bailiff companies as an excuse to attempt to charge an “attending to remove fee”. You should always state that you will make payments by the end of each month.

"Levying" on a vehicle that you do not own:
If a bailiff is unable to come into your property he will only be able to charge a fee of £24.50 for “attending to levy”. Instead, many bailiffs will “levy” upon a car parked either outside of your home or close by. In doing so, the bailiff will then charge a levy fee and many times, an incorrect “removal fee”. This tactic is widespread and has been the subject of a critical report from the Local Government Ombudsman. There is a Sticky on this very subject on the bailiff section of CAG which has had 7,000 viewings!!

How much should the bailiff charge?
The charges that a bailiff can charge are provided for in statute law as laid down by Parliament. The relevant legislation is the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992 (Si 613) and the fees are outlined in Schedule 5. I have also provided a copy as a Sticky in the bailiff section of CAG here

Who is responsible for the actions of the bailiff?
The answer to this is simple. It is the local authority.

It is important to be aware that the statutory regulations provide for the local authority to levy distress as soon as a liability order has been made and further, that the local authority can charge fees to the debtor as outlined in Schedule 5. Therefore, strictly speaking, the fees recovered are due to the council.

Some local authorities have their own in house bailiffs, but most councils contract out the levying of distress to private sector bailiff fees. As the regulations confirm, the fees are due to the council but in reality, almost all local authorities allow their agents to keep the fees for the work that the bailiff has undertaken to recover the debt.

In 1997, the fees that could be charged for “attending to levy” (where no levy was made) was set at just £20.00 for a 1st visit and £15.00 for a 2nd such visit. By 2003, so many councils had contracted out the levying of distress to private bailiff firms and the bailiff industry called upon the Government to substantially restructure the level of fees.

A Consultation Paper was issued and following responses, the government agreed to raise the fees for a 1st visit from £20.00 to £22.50 and for a 2nd such visit, from £15.00 to £16.50. A further small increase was agreed a few years ago and the current fee is now set at £24.50 for a 1st visit and £18.00 for a 2nd visit (to attend to levy).

The Consultation Paper also suggested that a maximum fee for a “van attendance” should be introduced but sadly, this was not implemented.

Both increases for a 1st and 2nd visit were minimal and in the response to the Consultation Paper the government confirmed that the reason for this was because:

“The fees payable in respect of the levy of distress are intended to cover the costs incurred by the local authority in making the levy and are due to the local authority”

And that:

“Whilst many contracts between local authorities and bailiff companies may “assign” the fees to the bailiff company, the fees are not, and were not intended to be, the fees of the bailiff”.

They also stated that the local authority cannot profit from enforcement.

Of utmost importance is the following comment from the 1997 Consultation Paper:

“Where an authority does contract out the work to a private sector bailiff company it is important that both sides should remember that the bailiff is working on behalf of the authority. Local authorities cannot abdicate responsibility for the actions of their contractor”.

“Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that the levy is carried out in a lawful manner and that the fees charged are in accordance with the regulations”

Furthermore; the Government reiterated that:

“Fees payable in relation to the levy of distress are intended to cover the costs of the local authority and are due to the local authority. Proposals were made to change some fee levels because it was considered that they were no longer meeting the costs of the local authority. However, fees charged to a debtor should only recompense a local authority for the costs arising from that debtor. They should not be increased to allow for costs from other debtors which have not been recovered nor to allow for an element of profit”

Many debtors write to bailiff companies to complain at the level of fees charged to their account. This is wrong. In reality, they should be writing a formal Letter of Complaint to the local authority (with a copy to the bailiff company) as it is the local authority who are wholly responsible for the fees charged by their agents and furthermore, as confirmed above, they are responsible for ensuring that the levy is carried out in a lawful manner and that the fees charged are in accordance with the regulations and finally.....the local authority cannot profit from enforcement.

With thanks to Tomtubby

HAS THE TIME ARRIVED FOR CHARITY TO BEGIN AT HOME?

2011-06-24T17:03:00.000+01:00

As we look forward to endless years of austerity that will be inflicted on us by the Government's severe public spending cuts, there is a growing consensus that believes the time has come for charity to begin at home. Our political leaders, while some still seem content to line their own pockets despite jail sentences handed to the few of their colleagues that were brought to task, the rest of us are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Contrary to what politicians tell us, we are certainly not all in this together. The divide between the highest and lowest paid continues to increase leaving the lowliest members of society to take the brunt of the suffering.

But while the steady hike in the cost of living hits the majority, it is the elderly, the sick and the lowest paid who are punished. Residential care homes are closing through lack of funding, terminally ill patients are being refused life prolonging drugs on cost grounds, thousands are losing their jobs and too many also their homes. None of this accounts for the appalling treatment being dished out by several NHS hospitals and the worst care homes. I could continue ranting about so much that is wrong with our country but this will be in the book I am writing.

If the fat cats opened their eyes and bothered to visit some of the most deprived parts of Britain they would see the vast inequalities that exist between the poorest living standards and their own. We have become a nation that fails to take care of its own, but the Government prefers to give billions of pounds of taxpayers' money in overseas aid without too many questions being asked. It is time we started taking notice of the needy in our own country before assisting overseas nations that are unable to help themselves. Although it may be commendable for Britain to be seen as a generous nation - in these difficult times is it inappropriate to help our own citizens first?

Public anger, particularly amongst the lowest paid, the unemployed and those living in appalling social housing is rife over the massive increases the Government has made to the international aid budget. This is currently set at 0.7 per cent of GDP that according to the Daily Mail will cost every household £479; money many could use to keep pace with spiralling domestic fuel bills! Many feel it is morally wrong for the Government to lavish billions of pounds of our money to aid other countries when unprecedented budget cuts will reduce the standards of almost every public service. David Cameron maintains he is correct to be more generous in the nation's support of other countries but there is widespread disagreement from MPs who are angered by the prime minister remark that the total devoted to foreign aid is "not a huge amount". Try telling that to those that have nowhere to shelter apart from in the cardboard cities and shop doorways on Britain's shabby streets and to those that live in filth and unbelievable poverty in decaying social housing on gang ridden inner city estates.

We knew it would be tough after the mess Labour got us into, but we are still spending money by sending our depleted armed forces to assist the Libyan rebels opposing Gaddafi. This action has already exceeded £250m, small change in military terms. And then there is the cost - in lives and money - of maintaining our military forces in Afghanistan. Think how this could have been used to provide adequate care for the elderly! When will the penny drop and for the Government to come to terms with the fact that we are no longer a major military and that our participation in the Middle East, could be fuelling terrorism rather than working to defeat it according to some political experts?

In October George Osborne announced that the budget assigned to the Dept for International Development would be raised by 34.2 per cent. Economists claim this will increase foreign aid in real terms by 50 per cent from £8.4billion in 2010 to £12.6billion by 2014. This is more than the Home Office budget used to fund the police, Border Agency and anti-terrorism measures. Their budget is to be cut by 25 per cent from £10.1bn to £8.3bn by 2014/15. Despite this, 17 DfID bureaucrats are reported to be receiving salaries ranging from £90,000 to £170,000 including Richard Calvert (£125,000), Nemat Shafik (£170,000) and Mark Lowcock (£135,000). It seems particularly hypocritical for executives devoted to reducing poverty in other countries to be paid this much.

Officials insist that foreign aid is well spent. As an example they tell us that it will reduce the numbers that die from malaria by around 50 per cent but what is the justification behind the money given to India (£295m) and Pakistan (£140m) when both have nuclear programmes that are shrouded in secrecy? It is thought each has between 70-90 warheads capable of destroying the other. China and Russia were also recipients of UK aid until recently despite their growing economies and the former's disregard for human rights.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox has spoken out against the increase in foreign aid but Barbara Stocking of Oxfam believes Britain's contribution offers great value to the taxpayer, although I doubt many will agree with her assumption. She claims that "For little more than a penny in the tax pound we not only help those in need but also boost our standing in the world and increase our influence in the global corridors of power". So, does this mean that those in need in Britain are being neglected to favour our standing in the world? It has long been suspected that much of the money provided in foreign aid is misdirected to finance the lifestyles of corrupt governments. One of the poorest countries on earth, Malawi, was one of those singled out when it was thought aid money was being diverted to the nation's government officials. After a diplomatic dispute with President Bingu wa Mutharika when he expelled the British Ambassador, it is believed £47m in aid given to Malawi could now be cut. Afghanistan is also high on the Government's priority list and is set to receive an additional £200m in aid over the next four years to help stabilize the government and economy. But it is doubtful whether British taxpayers feel their money is being well spent. Channel 4 News reported that Stuart Gordon, a research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, stated that "in such situation aid may have as many negative, unintended effects as positive ones, and at the very least, it is not a panacea". In a country where Taliban intimidation of the civilian population is rife, it is doubtful whether any amount of aid will succeed in stabilising the situation and the efforts of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams that are meant to be 'winning hearts and minds' is not working for the Afghans.

The 10 countries receiving the most aid in 2009/10:

1	INDIA	£295m	6	PAKISTAN	£140m
2	ETHIOPIA	£214m	7	AFGHANISTAN	£133m
3	BANGLADESH	£149m	8	NIGERIA	£114m
4	SUDAN	£146M	9	Dem Rep of CONGO	£109m
5	TANZANIA	£144M	10	GHANA	£90m

Part of Britain's foreign aid budget is also being spent by a little known BBC run charity, the World Charity Trust that is said to be 'changing lives through media'. This employs 600 staff in London and abroad but receives £800,000 a year from the BBC. This has financed sex education films, Hindi dramas, a radio soap opera for Myanmar about health care and aids and has paid for a radio station start up in Iraq. It has been reported that £15m of taxpayers' money goes to this charity although the spend last year was reported to have been £28m with money coming from official departments such as The British Council which is part of the Foreign Office.

Charity certainly seems to begin at home when it comes to the rewards that the UK's leading charities are paying their chief executives. Despite a concerted effort I have been unable to find latest figures of the salaries major charities are paying their chief executives although I believe this information should be in the public domain. The latest information I could locate was published in The Independent in November 2009. This makes some astonishing reading that may cause some donors to think again before handing their hard earned cash to some of their favourite causes. Top of the list was Deborah Shackleton of the Riverside Housing Group who was paid a salary of £231,000 in 2008/09. Other high-fliers include Martin Narey of Barnado's (£166,532); Fiona Reynolds of the National Trust (said to be between £160,000 and £169,000); Peter Hollins of the British Heart Foundation (£153,000); Bridget Warr of Guide Dogs for the Blind (between £120,000 and £130,000) and Gordon Lishman of Age Concern (£117,488 in 2007/08) to name just a few. Justin Byworth, CEO of World Vision, who has lavish offices in Milton Keynes, was paid £99,994 in pay and perks in 2008. There is no denying that these figureheads work hard and are highly influential in the success of the charities they represent, but salaries of this magnitude tends to grate. Charities are not slow to defend this by telling critics that they have no option but to pay high salaries in order to attract the right people. As I recall the same excuse was used by the banks before they shafted the country!

Nobody is naive to think that large charities handling tens of millions of pounds in donations can work from a rundown shed. Nevertheless their lavish offices, often in prime locations and kitted out expensively, and CEO salaries and perks appears hypocritical when they are appealing for donations from a public who are far less affluent. It leaves a sour taste to know that buildings and salaries take so much from the overall sums that are donated. It also adds insult to injury that David Cameron now believes that the public should 'round up' their credit card transactions so that the extra money can be paid directly to charities as part of his 'big society' theory. What planet is the prime minister now living on?

Finally there are the issues concerning the controversy that surrounds the charity status of 1200 or so independent schools including Eton, Harrow and Wellington. The latter collectively are granted £100m tax relief every year despite charging rich parents hefty fees. Some believe such tax benefits has been made possible because thousands of former students now hold key positions in high places and can influence decisions. To be granted charity status an organisation has to show that it operates for the benefit of the public - but come on - how much benefit has the general public ever received from public schools? Currently a Charity Trust tribunal is evaluating whether these schools can continue to pay no taxes on their income. State educators anxiously await their verdict with crossed fingers.

BRITAIN ISN'T BROKEN, BUT ITS CITIZENS ARE BROKE

2011-03-12T00:06:00.001Z

This is another interesting argument presented by Dr Angus Cameron of the Geography Department at the University of Leicester. You can watch his video here

or read his theory and the comments of others here

THE UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER POSES THE QUESTION - IS BRITAIN BROKEN?

2011-03-11T20:06:00.015Z

You can now follow a debate on the University of Leicester website that poses the question - Is Britain Broken?

Watch Dr Edmund Chattoe-Brown's video here

Dr Edmund Chattoe-Brown is a lecturer in Sociology at the University of Leicester and teaches research methods on the MSc. His research deals with decision making, computer simulation, social networks and models of innovation and change. Dr Chattoe-Brown believes Britain is not broken bu the instructions may be missing.

CAMERON MUST STOP SABRE-RATTLING AND COME TO HIS SENSES

2011-03-10T16:15:00.000Z

To think that I voted for Cameron. But I am now left doubting my sanity and it is starting to dawn on me that very few politicians have a clue about what they are doing. His threats of imposing a 'no fly zone' over Libya is starting to mirror what that former war-monger, Tony Blair did in Iraq.

By making all of these devastating cuts to our military capabilities, how can Cameron continue with the belief that Britain is a major military power capable of enforcing our will over other nations? It is time that we kept our dirty noses out of other people's battles more especially as we no longer have the muscle to back up our threats. Perhaps Cameron is starting to believe that he has been rather hasty in cutting our military's strength and prowess?

I doubt if any of us are enjoying the events that are unwinding in Libya and Cameron was sabre rattling when he appeared on the BBC One Show to tell the audience that "We have got to prepare for what we might have to do if he (Gaddafi) goes on brutalising his own people. I don't think we can stand aside and let that happen". Big words from a prime minister who has already committed to sacrificing our Armed Forces by sending out redundancy notices. It appears Cameron is attempting to rally other countries to his idea of preventing the bloodshed in Libya from continuing in much the same way as Blair had done over Iraq. We only need to look at that major blunder to see where this could all be heading. It is time that we started to mind our own business and stop committing what is left of our resources by poking our noses into the affairs of others. The main issue to consider here is that if Cameron enforces a no fly zone he will effectively be declaring war on Libya. Maybe he should concentrate his mind on the growing problems of our own country instead of thinking about committing our depleted troops to yet another potential theatre of war that we simply cannot afford.

And, if we do commit, what is he going to send? We haven't got much of an Air Force left and we could have even less if Gaddafi was to shoot down some of our remaining aircraft. We have already seen one major cock-up after Hague sent in the SAS on a mission that nobody appears to have quite understood and he can count himself lucky that we got our men back after they had been captured. The last thing Britain needs is to become embroiled in another war.

PHOTOGRAPHER 'ARRESTED' FOR PHOTOGRAPHING BUILDING

2011-02-24T08:46:00.016Z

This kind of thing is happening far too often despite Home Office and Police authority guidelines to prevent innocent people facing 'apprehension' by security officers who think they are the law.

Original letter from Simon St Clare to the Milton Keynes Citizen

I am a keen photographer and I regularly travel to CMK to watch films in Cineworld in Xscape. In the afternoon on Monday 7 Feb prior to watching a film I was ‘arrested’ by two of the Xscape security staff for taking photos of the outside of the building. I had just spent a while taking photos of the derelict part of The Food Hall and then I strolled over to Xscape where I took a few photos of part of the Xscape building. I had only been there for two minutes when I was approached by a security guard. He questioned me on my actions and I think he asked me to leave the area. I refused to leave the area and said I had the right to take photos in a public place. I thought it was reasonable to assume I was in a public place and my normal rights still applied.

A second security guard approached us and he stood behind me – which I thought was strange. I was then told that Xscape was a privately-owned building and I needed special permission to photograph it. They said it was both illegal and against Xscape company policy for the building to be photographed without permission. They then threatened to call the police if I did not leave the area. I thought it was reasonable to assume I was outdoors in a public place and any specifics regarding a company policy did not apply – afterall it wasn’t as if I was inside the building or in a nightclub or restaurant. I invited the security to call the police as I suspected they were being over-zealous and I hoped the police would confirm this and put them in their place.

We stood there outside in the cold waiting for the police to come along to let us know who’s right or wrong. After a couple of minutes I wanted to walk away (my plan was to go to see a film in Cineworld) but both guards stepped forwards and placed their hands on my arms. They told me I couldn’t go until the police arrived. I asked them if they would restrain me if I tried to go and they said they would.

Just after that I noticed one of the guards was not wearing an SIA (Security Industry Authority) badge – I thought a badge number was meant to be on display so that it was easier for them to be held accountable. I asked the guard if he had an SIA badge and he replied "Who are you to ask me that?". he then said something along the lines of 'A f***ing judge or a magistrate can ask me that but you can't.

I estimate it took the police ten to fifteen minutes to arrive. When they came they asked me some questions, took my details and then let me go. They were very polite and reasonable, they said I had done nothing wrong and that Xscape should have some signs on prominent display if they wanted to prevent photography outside the building. They recommended I complain to the Xscape management about the situation.

A few minutes after the police had left I spoke to the manager of the Xscape security to complain about the situation-specifically about the guard who swore at me and although he apologised, one of the things he said was to the extent of : some of their staff are direct in the way that they speak and deal with situations -they are, therefore, more suited to working later in the day when there are rowdy drunk people to be dealt with. On this occasion, he explained, one member of staff had ended up working earlier in the day than usual.

I’ve taken many photos in public places around MK and I never take photos that invade privacy. I have found that security guards often want photographers to go away – even if they have the right to take photos in a certain area. I accept that if I am approached and questioned by the police when I am near a shopping centre their intention is to protect the public. When I was approached by these guards I could not understand how what I was doing could be seen as wrong or illegal. From the moment they approached me I felt as though they were on the offensive, they were not polite and they treated me like a suspected criminal instead of treating me like a customer of the Xscape building.

Link to Report in Amateur Photographer (1)

Link to Report in Amateur Photographer (2)

PUBLIC SECTOR PAY

2011-02-19T15:48:00.004Z

While most of us are having to commit to a belt tightening exercise that extends far beyond what a strictest diet might achieve for our waistlines, the fat cats, particularly those in the higher echelons of public service are not suffering one jot. To the contrary most are seeing their wage packets increase at the expense of the rest of us.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalists in collaboration with the BBC's Panorama programme has revealed that more than 38,000 government workers are being paid more than £100,000 and 9,187 of them earn more than the Prime Minister. Of these 6,500 NHS employees are paid more than David Cameron. Even the Government are said to have been shocked by this because they had estimated that the number earning in the £100,00 bracket to be half this. Of these only one in five is a woman which knocks any suggestion of pay equality at a senior level. The shocking truth is that in schools and universities there are six men for every woman in the £100,000 pay sector and only one in eight women earns £200,000 or more. The Judiciary is even worse where pay equality at the highest level reduces to one women in eighteen.

When Labour came to power the number of public sector workers amounted to around 5.2 million people but this rose to 6.1 million over the last 13 years. This increase has also witnessed a sharp increase in the Government's wage bill to £157.7 billion with the highest paid three per cent of public sector workers seeing a 64 per cent rise in salary. Britain's highest paid public servants are costing the taxpayer £5bn a year.

The highest paid public worker is Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC who earns £838,000, but many GPs are earning more than the best surgeons and medical specialists. Ten general practitioners earn more than £300,000 with 1,145 of them earning more than Cameron. The highest paid of these works at Hillingdon and earns £475,500. The NHS is extremely protective about revealing the identities of their highest paid GPs but as they are paid for out of the public purse shouldn't we have a right to know? The Heart of Birmingham Primary Care Trust accounts for four of those in the top ten with a combined wage bill of £1.5 million.

In education, 385 teachers are paid more than £100,000 a year, 17 of them more than the Prime Minister and one (not named) is paid £232,500 by Essex County Council. With salaries such as these the National Secretary for Public Services at the GMB Union is fully justified in saying: "The fact that a head teacher could be paid so much while other staff in the school are paid so little is causing our members working in schools to feel this is outrageous."

In the nation's town halls 2,000 top paid executives earn a combined salary of a quarter of a billion pounds and 1,500 council chiefs earn more than David Cameron. Wandsworth, hardly an affluent area of London, spends almost £5 million on just 36 employees and their chief executive, Gerald Jones is said to be the country's highest paid local government worker with a salary of £299,925 including £54,000 in bonuses. Is it really any wonder that the country is in a state?

What really puts the higher public sector salaries into perspective is that the average UK salary is £22,405 but tens of thousands of employees earn far less than this especially those that work in menial jobs for local authorities.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HANG THEIR HEAD IN SHAME OVER THE NEGLECT OF FORMER SOLDIERS

2011-02-10T13:15:00.005Z

The way that our armed forces are treated when they return to civilian life after tours of duty in Afghanistan and formerly from Iraq is disgraceful. Whether we agree whether the engagement in Afghanistan is necessary or not is not the issue and our military personnel cannot be blamed for doing what they agreed to do when they signed on. But, after putting their lives on the line every day and witnessing their friends dying, being maimed or losing limbs when they leave the services many are left to fend for themselves when they return home. Successive governments are quick to commit our troops to danger but once they return to civilian life their needs are widely ignored leaving public supported charities to pick up the pieces.

In a hard hitting BBC Panorama programme (9 Feb 2011) Colonel Tim Collins exposed the traumas returning soldiers were having to face. Although not all will suffer post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), many will be affected by other war-related conditions that has led to family splits, violence and serious drinking problems. A study of around 10,000 Armed Forces personnel found that almost one in five (19.7 per cent) reported signs of a common mental health disorders, such as depression, anxiety or insomnia that is leaving many lives shattered. It did not believe that multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan had an effect on rates of PTSD, which was estimated to have affected between 3 and 4 per cent of British troops over the course of the study. The Combat Stress charity said there has been a 66 per cent rise in demand for its services in the past five years, with discharged veterans taking 14 years on average before seeking help. Military veterans are, in the main, extremely proud individuals who are reluctant to ask for help. Support services have been reported to be seeing about 4,000 new veterans each year, but this could rise to 9,000 a year within a decade, the charity added. Veterans with psychiatric problems are unlikely to receive the treatment they need from the NHS since mental health provisions were axed and this could cause massive problems within the community in years to come that are not being addressed.

Soldiers have also been abused, attacked and refused entry to pubs and nightclubs and the levels of protests against homecoming troops from Muslim reactionaries in Barking and Luton have been well documented. Veterans are also finding difficulties finding work in a worsening job market while others have been forced to live rough on the streets when they have been unable to find affordable accommodation. A few have also ended up serving prison sentences. Had the appropriate level of State funded help been available most of these former soldiers could have been spared from the ruination of their lives. Instead, the role of helping these victims continues to fall on the charity sector such as Support Our Soldiers and the Royal British Legion. However, the Panorama programme revealed that the RBL (which has an income of £125m)could offer assistance to many more veterans if they knew who they were, but the Ministry of Defence has hidden behind the Data Protection Act and has failed to release information to identify those in need.

The former Army chief, Sir Richard Dannatt, has revealed that there are 2,000 armed services fund-raising charities with a joint income of £800m but with so many there is a lack of coordination and cooperation between these which leads to overlap and duplication. Dannatt has praised the public for their generosity in supporting its military but he didn't expect their generosity to last forever. The chief executive for Veterans Aid Chris Simpkins said "Veterans are for life, not just for Christmas. So the real issue is about who's going to be here, can everyone sustain themselves for the long haul?"

The Independent on 15 November 2009 carried the headline 'Homecoming fit for heroes? The plight of Britain's veterans' . What followed was a hard hitting story that serves as a poignant reminder that not enough is being done. The responsibility for these veterans is really the responsibility of central government and it really isn't doing enough.

BRITAIN TOO SOFT ON EXTREMISTS

2011-02-05T14:01:00.000Z

David Cameron is finally saying what sane minded people have been saying for a long time.

View the report here

FINANCIAL INCLUSION FUNDS CUTS CONFIRMED

2011-02-01T14:33:00.008Z

The Legal Action Group has reported on their blog how the Financial Inclusion Fund (FIF) that pays for nearly 500 debt advisors based at Citizens Advice Centres anf other non-profit help centres will end in March. The Fund was established by the Labour government in 2004 to provide £45m in funding to pay for face-to-face advice services that was used by around 100,000 people a year. This is a further example of how those that cannot afford to pay for legal advice, will be hit by cut backs. The advisors funded under the scheme also face redundancy. Read the full story here

ARE WE CONTINUING DOWN THE ROCKY ROAD TO RUIN?

2011-01-31T22:53:00.002Z

If the financier George Soros is right with his latest predictions the severe cuts being made by the Coalition will plunge Britain back into recession. Soros is not often wrong and it was his betting against the pound that led to Britain's exit from the European exchange rate mechanism during the time David Cameron was advising Norman Lamont.

This is not the kind of news that we want to hear, but it suggests how the financial situation might be continuing to spiral out of control. With Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor you expect him to vehemently oppose George Osborne's economic policies. Labour has described the cuts as 'hurting not working' but Balls' own track record was counter-productive during the time he was advising Gordon Brown's during the period that virtually bankrupted the country. But Balls does not agree that Labour's spending policies and promise to end 'boom and bust' created the mess we are in and prefers to blame Britain's deficit problems on the global banking crisis. This may be partly true, but Brown is responsible for failing to control the banks.

But with the Alliance saying one thing and Labour saying the opposite, it is no wonder the economy is in dire straits. It is strange how opposing parties always disagree on economic policies which leads one to doubt whether any of them has a clue about controlling the economy. Political debates mean little more than point scoring and since the MP's expenses scandal and Labour's spending spree the public has every justification for not trusting them.

After the general election I was possibly misguided and believed the idea of a coalition could work by combining the best brains of both parties; now I'm less sure. Initially Vince Cable was extremely credible. After all, for a time he appeared to talk sense and many thought he had sound ideas that would steer the country back towards stability. That ended when he shot himself in the foot by making ridiculous remarks to undercover journalists about how he was going to declare war on Rupert Murdoch. Since his major faux pas Vince lost much of his popularity and now we hear little from him.

Osborne remains tunnel-visioned over his policies while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) continues to rise, moving from 3.3% in November to 3.7% in December, and the VAT increase to 20% will make high street trading tougher causing retail sales to fall. Fuel prices have increased by their fastest yearly rate and food costs soared by their highest annual increase since May 2009. The Bank of England got it wrong too and has confirmed it expects the CPI to be higher than they had estimated throughout 2011. While this is grim enough, the Retail Price Index (RPI) that accounts for housing expenses including mortgage repayments, council tax and insurance also increased by 1% to 4.8% - the highest rate in 8 months. None of this inspires confidence.

The public have had enough of political spin that regards them as stupid. They know that tough measures are necessary if the country is to return to prosperity, but they are growing impatient and tired of being punished by an enforced austerity that is hitting the poor the hardest. We know we are certainly not all in this together and while the lowest paid and those on benefits are being pushed deeper into poverty the filthy rich are cushioned from the cost of living increases suffered by the masses. The banking community, despite its blatant negligence, continues to reap unbelievable rewards while the government capitulates by refusing to kerb their obscene bonuses. One CEO's bonus alone would be sufficient to move hundreds from the breadline. In January a spokesperson for Cameron said: “We have made a broad statement which is about the need to see some restraint and some responsibility from the banks, but we are not going to set bonus pools for individual banks.” Of course not, because the Treasury stands to gain £20bn in taxes from the bankers. Cameron told the Andrew Marr Show that although the government wanted to see lower bonuses paid in 2011 the banks could not be "micro-managed." The PM added: “What I want to see is socially responsible banks behaving responsibly, lower bonus pools than last year's, responsible levels of remuneration, proper agreements on lending to businesses large and small, and being good citizens in the community.” But this won't happen. The banks have been allowed to become bigger than the State and this is unhealthy. The government resists restricting the banks fearing that if pushed too hard talented bankers would flee the country to some far away Shangri La where they can continue doing what they want. If this happens London would risk losing its status as a major financial capital. Against this we should ask for proof of who these 'star performers' are and what roles they played in the banking crisis? If challenged we might find there is less talent in the City than they want us to believe.

Despite of all that has transpired, the bankers still have no shame and RBS will be paying its chief executive, Stephen Hester, a bonus of £2.5m even though they were bailed out using taxpayers' money. This cannot be justified since RBS was fined £2.8m for gross shortcomings in customer service. The magnitude of this payout would be morally wrong at any time, but it makes people feel sick to the pit of their stomachs for bonuses to be paid when the rest of the country are forced to tighten its belts. It adds further salt to the public's wounds when the unrepentant head of Barclays, Bob Diamond, refused to apologise for dragging Britain into the worst recession since 1929 and then having the nerve to say the "period of remorse needs to be over" during questioning by the Treasury Select Committee. Diamond is expected to receive an £8.5m bonus this year but when challenged over whether he would be taking this he smugly replied: "That decision is out of my hands. I would discuss it with my family" before pompously telling MPs that he "resented" some of their questions. Diamond's attitude reflects the banking industry's outrageous contempt of the public and towards authority but it is indicative of the total greed demonstrated by the highest paid bankers.

Bankers are of course far removed from the realities of normal life, but so too are many MPs. The veteran TV presenter and journalist Andrew Neil recently presented a provocative documentary Posh and Posher - Why Public School Boys Run Britain that showed how so many politicians are drawn from privileged backgrounds. This has created a lack of social mobility that is denying bright, talented working class people from reaching the higher echelons of politics. Neil argued that Britain has returned to the type of grouse moor leadership that permeated during the premierships of people like Harold MacMillan and Alec Douglas-Home who had both been educated at Eton and Oxford. Cameron and Clegg similarly were private school and Oxbridge educated, three quarters of the coalition cabinet are millionaires and a third of Labour front benchers went through Oxbridge. In all, a third of all MPs attended fee paying schools along with 50% of the cabinet. Considering that only 7% of the general public attend private schools this indicates how the moneyed classes are dominating politics. Many MPs are career politicians that have been groomed in the right circles in preparation for their entry into politics. After graduating from top universities others have become lawyers or journalists but few have worked their way into politics from ordinary backgrounds. The union movement once channelled prominent officials into the Labour party but unless the system changes there will no longer be an opportunity for grassroots politicians such as John Prescott and Alan Johnson to be accepted. The class differences means that MPs can make tough policies without having to experience the hardships they create. David Davis, a Conservative MP from a lowly background said of Cameron and Osborne: "They are who they are; they come from their own background; they don't have to scrape for their last penny at the end of the week." His comment speaks volumes about the privileged lives MPs lead. Most are immune and therefore unable to equate with those who cannot escape the misery of a rundown inner city council estate. They have no experience of being raised on benefits in a household where nobody has ever worked or where a father is permanently absent. This is the stark reality of our country today and is indicative of how far detached politicians are from their voters.

But the situation is no longer the reserve of the poor. The elite similarly has no grasp of the realities of those that have worked all their lives, perhaps rising to a management position and are now being made redundant with no prospect of finding work. They cannot equate with business owners who have toiled for years, perhaps employing others, who have lost everything due to the bank's refusal to support them. Public sector cuts will target the lowest paid the hardest. Most that lose their livelihoods will never recover and if Osborne's recovery plans fail so will they and there will be no confidence left businesses will not employ new staff. Ed Miliband accused Cameron of being the 'defender of the banks'. Cameron has said "What we all want to see is the banks paying more in tax , and we will see that. We want the banks doing more lending, and we will see that, and we want to see bonuses cut, and we will see that." But does anyone really believe what the politicians are saying any more?

THIS IS JUST ONE REASON WHY BRITAIN IS BROKEN

2011-01-22T16:44:00.005Z

This is the worst story I have seen this year. A helpless 92-year old was beaten on her own doorstep and the thug that did it stole £30. What has this country become? This is completely beyond contempt.

Please read the full shocking story here

FIGHTING THE CAUSE FOR THE DISABLED

2011-01-22T16:23:00.004Z

To the disabled people of Great Britain. Our individual voices are too quiet to be heard, but collectively we can shout loud enough to drown out this tide of abuse against us. Disability Hate Crime, lack of full legal protection, people in care homes costing too much to be let out and not one political party willing to fight for us. We must emulate other successful civil rights movements and with polite determination take our place as equal members of society.

Please visit The Broken of Britain Blog & give them your support

WHY THE BENEFITS SYSTEM IS LEAVING THE MOST NEEDY TO ROT?

2011-01-22T13:41:00.013Z

Thousands of people over the age of forty feel their lives have already come to an end as they collapse into deep poverty and build up massive debts caused by dramatic changes that are threatening their existence. Most face losing their homes and everything they have spent their lives working for. The rigid laws of the Welfare State completely fail to take into account the individual needs of those who may have lost a business they have slaved to build over many years or lost well-paid jobs; suffered from long term illness or become disabled. These life changing circumstances in the majority of cases have arisen through no fault of their own, yet a system they have contributed towards throughout their entire working lives are denied them when they unexpectedly need help and are at their most vulnerable. None of these people are spongers; indeed most are extremely embarrassed by their situation and will have delayed going cap-in-hand to the faceless Jobcentre Plus until their own money has run because they view seeking help to pay their household bills to be a totally alien and hostile experience.

While we are all familiar with the cases of fraudsters, benefits cheats and foreign nationals who have got away with millions of pounds in taxpayers' money, those that are genuinely poor and would give their right hand to find a job, are being left to sink deeper into the mire. Those who find themselves out of work for the first time in 30-45 years are forced to sell their cherished possessions and cash in their pensions in order to pay what still remains on their mortgages. But any money they may have managed to save rapidly disappears once their period of unemployment extends from weeks; to months; to years. The terrifying risk of losing the family home then kicks in as stress levels increase and couples start to get at each other's throats, often causing them to split up. For some the burden is simply too overwhelming and they contemplate the ultimate sacrifice; by committing suicide. Many see an early death as their only escape from their all-engulfing problems. Many honest, upright citizens who have worked and contributed towards the welfare system throughout their careers have considered suicide when they reach rock bottom and feel they have nothing left to live for, having been rejected for countless jobs and fearing what will arrive in the next post. The feeling of total hopelessness is very real more especially as the State has left them to rot.

Despite Iain Duncan Smith claiming that he will overhaul the entire benefits system by making it fairer, we are now nine months into this Government's tenancy and there is no evidence that the most needy are getting a fairer deal. Quite the contrary. The poor need money today, not in six months time and there is no time left to wait while bureaucracy considers their needs only to shatter their confidence by refusing any help. The Government has calculated that a couple should be able to live on a total income of just £202.40 a week yet, this figure takes no consideration of the outgoings they have to meet just to pay for housing, buy food, keep warm, have fresh water and to maintain even the most basic form of life. Once a 26-week period of unemployment is reached, Job Seeker's Allowance will end if a claimant's spouse works more than 24-hours a week. This is considered to be full time and any benefits will only be paid to make up the difference between the partner's earnings and the £202.40 set by the Government. This is simply insufficient to live on by anyone's standards more especially as no consideration is given to inflation and the prices of basic essentials that continue to rocket. How anyone with a mortgage is expected to continue paying for their home beggars belief and yet the Government will claim they are committed to defeating poverty and homelessness. Is it any wonder there is a widespread belief that some people are better off by not working?

But in reality nobody cares - certainly not politicians although they will say they do. Meanwhile Britain's so called under class is being over-populated by those that were once part of the working class.

Well worth reading: Hard Work - Life in Low-Pay Britain by Polly Toynbee (published 2003).

Things have not changed; they have merely got worse as Britain declines into a 21st century version of something portrayed by Hogarth.

Romanian cheats system of over £113,000

Jailed cleric's home being paid for by taxpayer

SELLING THE NATION’S GOLD

2011-01-16T17:41:00.000Z

It has been said by his supporters that Gordon Brown was an excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although I am no economist, even I can appreciate that during his reign at 11 Downing Street he committed one of the most grotesque financial blunders of all time that cost the country around £2 billion at the time, but more than £12.5 billion when more recent gold prices are taken into consideration. By committing this single act, Brown blotted his copy book so badly that it greatly reduced his credibility in the eyes of the British public leaving many doubting his ability.

Brown’s cut price sale of 395 tonnes of gold, half the nation’s reserves, has to go down as one of the his most amazing gaffes and this happened before he went on to blow an unbelievable amount of taxpayers’ money. Britain had held 715 tons of gold since the 1970s and until Brown became Chancellor, no previous administration had ever considered parting with it. The crime of selling these precious reserves at the worst possible price might have been considered treasonable centuries ago, but an even bigger error in his judgement came when he announced his plans to the world prior to selling, thus causing a dramatic drop in the market price. Experts were stunned by Brown’s decision to sell it by auction instead of keeping his intention quiet and disposing of it gradually on the open market. When it was sold, the gold price was at a 20-year low and it fetched only an average price of $275 an ounce across seventeen auctions. In May 2007 gold prices had risen to $685 an ounce and by 11 January 2010 had reached $1152.70 and on 16 January 2011 it was at $1359.35 an ounce (according to www.goldprice.org). Did Brown merely have a mad moment by making a gross error of judgement; or was this some way of preparing us for the destruction of our economy that was to follow once he became Prime Minster? We may never know because Gordon Brown is never likely to admit to anything nor is he ever likely to apologise to British taxpayers for the mess he got this country into by overspending. In any event the debacle will forever be known as ‘Browns Bottom’ and that is putting it politely.

THE FEARS BEHIND A BROKEN BRITAIN

2011-01-13T12:46:00.000Z

The latest book that I am writing was born because of my personal experiences and dismay of a country that has disproportionately declined during my lifetime; a view that I share with the majority of ordinary British people of my generation. In every household, workplace, bar and community, the conversation of those living out their autumn years is generally much the same. We talk of how we have become disillusioned by the way the country is being run; how greed has been allowed to permeate our society to replace care and a social conscience and how so little opportunity exists for young people leaving full time education and those that have worked all their lives who are merely trying to remain in paid employment. Inevitably this won’t be a happy read full of heart-lifting optimism with tales about a wonderful country that our grandchildren will be proud to inherit. Far from it; my text speaks volumes about the concerns shared by a myriad of quiet, normal, peace loving citizens that are not usually known for voicing their opinions. But the older you get the more you become aware that we are all speaking with a singular voice, especially about the horrors we share over the way the politicians have squandered our heritage and have removed our rights to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers had fought two world wars to preserve. My contemporaries speak vociferously about their deep concerns for the future of a Britain that has become so absorbed by personal wealth and a bureaucracy that by their very actions has demonstrated a thoroughly unhealthy desire to totally control our lives.

People are extremely angry and they are worried. They are worried for their own futures; they are worried for their children, their friends and for ordinary people who are ceasing to matter in a society that is running out of control. There is also particular concern about how we will be able to take care of ourselves and our loved ones as we grow too old, too frail or have less mental capacity and our value to the state as a taxpayer comes to an end and we become a burden. This fear grows on a daily basis with the realisation that old age and the potential decline in our physical and mental condition is getting ever closer. Added to this deep rooted fear is the all encapsulating knowledge that nobody is listening to ordinary people any more.

ONCE UPON A TIME THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED CUSTOMER SERVICE

2010-11-29T15:09:00.000Z

When I was a lad we knew that we could always rely on our public services. The trains ran on time and were affordable; bus services were regular; our milk was left on our doorstep at the crack of dawn everyday and the postman delivered our mail at the same time every day - usually as we ate breakfast. I also delivered newspapers and had two rounds; one in the morning, the other during the evening and people could rely on me to deliver their papers so they could read them at the breakfast table or while they are tea.

But oh how things have changed. You now need a mortgage to travel long distance on the railways at at time that suits you; the bus services seldom keep to schedules (if they run at all) and after our milkman decided not to deliver a couple of days every week we gave him the elbow. We get three different free newspapers through our door - most weeks. Sometimes we got none at all. We don't mind that because they only go in the recycling bin because they contain nothing worth reading.

Then there is the post! This started to go downhill 20 years ago; at least it did where I live and it has just got steadily worse. Just as we had got used to one postman he was replaced on the walk and another appeared for the next few weeks. Then he was changed and so on. With the coming of each different postman the service declined. Deliveries have got later and now we are lucky to receive our delivery by midday. Some days, usually a Wednesday, there is often no delivery at all. But, I have become tired of complaining; nobody takes any notice and anyway - if you try telephoning the sorting office the phone never gets answered.

Our national services are falling apart and good, old-fashioned customer service is a thing of the past. I have had issues with my Broadband for the last few months but they simply refuse to accept that it simply does not work properly. But no matter how many complaining letters I write nothing ever gets resolved. I am sick of trying to converse with call centres in India - they may well be very pleasant people but they have lack being able to converse in basic English - and I am tired of receiving template letters from companies I spend money with.

This is only one very small part of how Britain has become broken. Please tell me your experiences.

BROKEN BRITAIN IS A MATTER OF OPINION

2010-10-23T11:42:00.000+01:00

‘Broken Britain’ is a description Conservative leader David Cameron regularly used during his term in opposition to describe a nation that has been brought to its knees by a Labour government that could not stop wasting public funds or interfering with our lives in almost every conceivable way. The term had originally been coined by the Centre for Social Justice a think tank conceived by the former conservative leader Ian Duncan Smith with Tim Montgomerie and Philippa Stroud but since then it has fallen into everyday parlance.

While they went on their massive spending spree Labour failed to do anything, other than talk, about what it proposed to do to halt the serious social decline that has been seriously undermining our country. Views may differ and you may or may not agree that Britain is broken; although the evidence overwhelmingly should convince even the staunchest disbelievers that Britain can no longer proudly proclaim to be the Great nation it once was. Opinions will depend largely on individual circumstances but a point of view is more likely to be influenced by a person’s ethnicity and socio-economic position. The financially secure will, in the main, be cosseted from the worst effects of civil depravation but an increasing number are falling into poverty and are coming into regular contact with the fragmented and less savoury aspects of a society that is failing their needs. Unless you have already been a victim of violent crime; your house has been broken into or you have voluntarily chosen to enter the world of the vulnerable poor, you are unlikely to understand the lifestyles they are forced to endure. Those struggling at the lower end of society will always suffer from the ineptitude, neglect and darker sides a society that is embarrassed by poverty. As a nation we are a people that generously will donate millions of pounds to natural disasters across the globe but we largely choose to ignore our own poor and walk past a homeless person as if they were not there. Charity should begin at home but although the government donates considerable sums of money in overseas aid they fail to meet the daily needs of so many in our own country. I am not suggesting we should cease giving aid to poorer nations, just that matters should be considered in perspective.