The following is taken from http://faulkstalks.blogspot.com/. It is a continuation from Anna Raccoon's blog Fighting them on the Sandwell
You can read the letter below or click on the link An Open Letter To Sandwell Council to go to the blog.
To Whom It May Concern
I understand from the press and legions of political bloggers that I read that once again you have excelled yourselves in your zeal for keeping a tidy district. I am sure that you are proud of your efforts to achieve this. I use the term 'once again,' because I understand that on various occasions you taken decisive action against people who have by their behaviour - knowingly or otherwise - transgressed your precise (or might I say 'exacting'?) standards, and who have been victimised accordingly.
Your action against a widow - whose 'offense' was to pinch out a cigarette she was smoking at a bus stop, thus dropping the lighted end on your immaculate street - has proved that you are a council that leads the way in mercilessness and malice. It is abundantly clear for all to see that you hold these qualities to the highest degree.
Permit me to courteously remind you of a few facts:
First of all, as a council, you are the servants of the area. You are not their lords/masters/despots/satraps/kings. This may not be how you would like it to be, but that is how it is. Please consider this - as painful as it may be to you.
Secondly, your local populace earns money which, through their hard work or investment, goes to pay for your wages. In other words, you are beholden to those whose living subsidises your way of life - and, doubtless the sumptuous premises in which you work and from where you issue your diktats and generate the various trendy 'diversity' projects upon which you lavish taxpayer's hard-earned cash.
Thirdly, this is still nominally a free country. It is not a Soviet Socialist republic or a fascist dictatorship - yet. I realise that as a Labour council, there are people in your ranks who have qualified as Common Purpose 'graduates,' and who have enthusiastically imbibed the anti-democratic values and practices that it is intended to subvert. That this country has not yet fully circumvented the vaguely democratic values that has under-girded it may not be to your liking, but again - that's how it is. Deal with it. This is still a free country. There are still regular, law-abiding people who pay your substantial wages who abhor the petty vindictiveness which you have displayed to the lady in question along with others who have also fallen foul of your nastiness. There are doubtless those in your very district who fought in the Second World War to oppose the very principles which you have so enthusiastically applied - authoritarian fascism. You have betrayed them - and all the others of the same generation who endured bereavement and a myriad of hardships and made sacrifices to fight oppression and tyranny for the sake of you and I. I hope you are pleased with yourselves.
Finally, let me remind you that until this country becomes a repressed third-world, third-rate vassal state of an emerging totalitarian socialist Utopia, there will continue to be people like this present writer who will vehemently oppose you and your despotic ways and will take every opportunity to publicly register their undying contempt for the supercilious attitude and inhuman ways in which you operate. And until we are silenced by some secret police force, we will continue to do so.
Now the above letter is about a specific incident at a specific council, but don't you think it could be about almost any council in the country?
Showing posts with label Councils. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Councils. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Monday, 23 August 2010
Someone needing everyones support
I have just read Anna Raccoon's Blog entry called Fighting ‘them’ on the Sandwell. After reading it I had to spread the word.
It involves a council who is taking an old lady to court over some litter. The litter in question is some burnt ash from a cigarette.
Read the whole story below;
70 years ago this week, Winston Churchill made his famous speech immortalising the words ‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.’ He did so to rally every man and woman in these Isles to support the war effort: “because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity, but of tolerance and variety.”
Sheila Martin was a fragile babe in arms when her Mother heard those words. Too young to understand the menace behind the Messerschmitts and Heinkels screaming overhead and disturbing her slumber. She was the intended beneficiary of Churchill’s words, one of the generation of children that depended on the bravery of British men such as her Father, away in France fighting for the freedom, tolerance and variety that was Britain’s hallmark.
Today, Sheila is once more fragile; she is 70 years old and was widowed 30 years ago. She tells me she has survived five heart attacks; she suffers from asthma, angina and high blood pressure. She only smokes the occasional cigarette these days, partly for health reasons, partly because her minimal state pension doesn’t stretch to any more.
70 years after Churchill’s speech was made, she has retired from a lifetime of hard work.
She was part of that unsung army of hard working, clean living, decent individuals, who cheerfully got up every morning and trudged off to put in a decent days work for a paltry wage as a ‘Mrs Mop’, raised her family, nurtured her marriage, made ends meet, saved little, but asked little in return, save the freedom, and tolerance that her older relatives had fought to provide. She is not a politically aware lady, nor insolent, nor ambitious for financial rewards.
In common with other ‘Smokers’ who may not like the new laws prohibiting them from smoking where others may be offended by the practice, she respected the law of the land, and complied. She is no campaigner against such laws.
Thus it was that she found herself standing at a bus stop, waiting for the bus which would take her home, and taking the opportunity to smoke a cigarette in the open air – there was no bus shelter. She could no longer smoke a cigarette on the top deck of the bus. She had not been able to smoke a cigarette with the cup of tea she shared with her daughter in town. Now she must stand in the road to enjoy the ‘freedom, tolerance and variety’ of the British Isles.
She only smoked half the cigarette; as the time drew close for the bus to arrive, she ‘nibbed’ the cigarette, letting the lit end fall to the ground, and thriftily stowing the other half of the cigarette in her handbag for a later occasion. It was her last cigarette until pension day.
Two of Sandwell’s famed ‘enforcement wardens’ approached her – a man and a woman. They told her that they were issuing a ‘Fixed Penalty Fine’ of £75 under Section 87 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by Section 18 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. This mouthful of gobblygook was lost on Sheila; she had no idea what she had done wrong and put the piece of paper in her pocket.
Once home, friends and neighbours clustered round to read this piece of officialdom. Sheila still had the ‘end’ of the cigarette, with its precious inch or so of un-smoked tobacco in her handbag, so how could she be accused of littering the street – it had to be the cigarette ash they were talking about?
I have spoken to Sandwell Council, they tell me that they do not issue fixed penalty notices for cigarette ‘ash’ – I am sure they don’t. I am equally sure that Mrs Martin is telling the truth when she tells me that the half cigarette with its ‘butt’ was still safely in her handbag when she returned home. So we are left with the quandary of whether the ‘lit’ end of a cigarette, which will become cigarette ‘ash’ within seconds, constitutes parliament’s intention when they defined litter as including:
In section 98 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (definitions), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A)“Litter” includes—
(a) the discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products, and
(b) discarded chewing-gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing.”
If a court holds that it does, then every smoker is liable for a £75 fine every time they smoke a cigarette in the street. I do not believe that to be parliament’s intention.
On Friday, the threatening ‘Final Demand’ from Sandwell Council, warning her that she now faces a £2,500 fine plus costs (and possible imprisonment if she does not pay that) expired. The next opportunity for Mrs Martin to contest this matter will come in ‘some months time’ – the council cannot tell me when her case will arrive at the top of their back log of cases to appear in the Magistrates court.
Sheila Martin is frightened, intimidated, and feels helpless in the face of this prosecution. She is in delicate health, aggravated by stress, and I have asked the council to reconsider their decision to press ahead with what may well be an interesting test case defining a cigarette end, but which will be at the expense of a frail and elderly person. They have referred me to their ‘revised Enforcement Policy’ – which makes for terrifying reading, a fine example of the totalitarian government Sheila’s Father fought so bravely to prevent. (available HERE)
Nick Hogan, who I was instrumental in rescuing from prison after similar council action, has joined with me, the Libertarian Party and the Sunday Mercury, to ensure that Sheila suffers as little as possible from the council’s intransience.
We have already arranged for some very high powered legal representation for her, to put her mind at rest, and I have promised her that she will go to prison ‘over my dead body’ – she is obviously unable to pay this fine, or incremental increases of it, and I have personally guaranteed her that somehow I will make sure that she doesn’t have to pay it herself, nor go to prison.
There is no need for money at present, all the legal beagles so far involved are kindly donating their time and expertise free of charge – although if there are any other lawyers out there who would like to join the team, this is one broth that will not be spoiled by too many cooks. My e-mail address is on the contact section of this blog.
70 years ago we were prepared to ‘fight them on the beaches’ – how appropriate that today we prepare to f’ight them on the Sandwell……’
UPDATE:
CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to raise funds to help an elderly widow who has been threatened with a £2,500 fine for dropping cigarette ash on the pavement.
Sheila Martin, 70, was smoking at a bus stop when a Sandwell Council warden pounced and handed her the £75 fixed penalty for littering.
The frail granny, from Oldbury, has refused to pay – and now faces a £2,500 penalty or even prison.
But on-line campaigners who freed a pub landlord from jail for a similar offence earlier this year have now come forward to lend their support.
Nick Hogan, former landlord of The Swan and Barristers in Bolton, was jailed for six months for failing to pay fines and costs totalling £10,136 after being guilty of allowing customers to light up.
But he walked free after an internet campaign raised £10,000 to secure his early release in just 10 days.
Web blogger Anna Raccoon was instrumental in securing his freedom and has now vowed to help Mrs Martin.
She said: “As a result of articles I wrote, the generosity of my readers and with the co-operation of other bloggers, we managed to raise the money in 10 days and get Nick released from jail.
“Now we are prepared to turn our efforts to helping Sheila Martin. If she does not pay the fine, she could be sent to jail just as Nick Hogan was.
“That is oppressive persecution and we should not stand by and watch an elderly widow treated like this.
“My readers are happy to support Sheila in any way we can, to enable her to fight this penalty.”
Last night Mrs Martin said: “I am so touched by all the support people have been giving me all week.
“I thought I was all alone and now I realise I am not. It has made me feel so much better.”
Simon Clarke, Director of Pro-smoking Group FOREST, also offered his support. He said: “What is happening to her is just another example of the bully state.
“Smokers are easy targets and while we do not condone littering, this case is just a complete overreaction by Sandwell Council.
“We will not allow this frail old lady to be bullied and we will do everything we can to help her.”
I am so angry right now, How can this council take a frail old lady to court over something as trivial as burnt ash.
Spread the word and if you want go to Anna Raccoon's Blog and show your support.
It involves a council who is taking an old lady to court over some litter. The litter in question is some burnt ash from a cigarette.
Read the whole story below;
70 years ago this week, Winston Churchill made his famous speech immortalising the words ‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.’ He did so to rally every man and woman in these Isles to support the war effort: “because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity, but of tolerance and variety.”
Sheila Martin was a fragile babe in arms when her Mother heard those words. Too young to understand the menace behind the Messerschmitts and Heinkels screaming overhead and disturbing her slumber. She was the intended beneficiary of Churchill’s words, one of the generation of children that depended on the bravery of British men such as her Father, away in France fighting for the freedom, tolerance and variety that was Britain’s hallmark.
Today, Sheila is once more fragile; she is 70 years old and was widowed 30 years ago. She tells me she has survived five heart attacks; she suffers from asthma, angina and high blood pressure. She only smokes the occasional cigarette these days, partly for health reasons, partly because her minimal state pension doesn’t stretch to any more.
70 years after Churchill’s speech was made, she has retired from a lifetime of hard work.
She was part of that unsung army of hard working, clean living, decent individuals, who cheerfully got up every morning and trudged off to put in a decent days work for a paltry wage as a ‘Mrs Mop’, raised her family, nurtured her marriage, made ends meet, saved little, but asked little in return, save the freedom, and tolerance that her older relatives had fought to provide. She is not a politically aware lady, nor insolent, nor ambitious for financial rewards.
In common with other ‘Smokers’ who may not like the new laws prohibiting them from smoking where others may be offended by the practice, she respected the law of the land, and complied. She is no campaigner against such laws.
Thus it was that she found herself standing at a bus stop, waiting for the bus which would take her home, and taking the opportunity to smoke a cigarette in the open air – there was no bus shelter. She could no longer smoke a cigarette on the top deck of the bus. She had not been able to smoke a cigarette with the cup of tea she shared with her daughter in town. Now she must stand in the road to enjoy the ‘freedom, tolerance and variety’ of the British Isles.
She only smoked half the cigarette; as the time drew close for the bus to arrive, she ‘nibbed’ the cigarette, letting the lit end fall to the ground, and thriftily stowing the other half of the cigarette in her handbag for a later occasion. It was her last cigarette until pension day.
Two of Sandwell’s famed ‘enforcement wardens’ approached her – a man and a woman. They told her that they were issuing a ‘Fixed Penalty Fine’ of £75 under Section 87 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by Section 18 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. This mouthful of gobblygook was lost on Sheila; she had no idea what she had done wrong and put the piece of paper in her pocket.
Once home, friends and neighbours clustered round to read this piece of officialdom. Sheila still had the ‘end’ of the cigarette, with its precious inch or so of un-smoked tobacco in her handbag, so how could she be accused of littering the street – it had to be the cigarette ash they were talking about?
I have spoken to Sandwell Council, they tell me that they do not issue fixed penalty notices for cigarette ‘ash’ – I am sure they don’t. I am equally sure that Mrs Martin is telling the truth when she tells me that the half cigarette with its ‘butt’ was still safely in her handbag when she returned home. So we are left with the quandary of whether the ‘lit’ end of a cigarette, which will become cigarette ‘ash’ within seconds, constitutes parliament’s intention when they defined litter as including:
In section 98 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (definitions), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A)“Litter” includes—
(a) the discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products, and
(b) discarded chewing-gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing.”
If a court holds that it does, then every smoker is liable for a £75 fine every time they smoke a cigarette in the street. I do not believe that to be parliament’s intention.
On Friday, the threatening ‘Final Demand’ from Sandwell Council, warning her that she now faces a £2,500 fine plus costs (and possible imprisonment if she does not pay that) expired. The next opportunity for Mrs Martin to contest this matter will come in ‘some months time’ – the council cannot tell me when her case will arrive at the top of their back log of cases to appear in the Magistrates court.
Sheila Martin is frightened, intimidated, and feels helpless in the face of this prosecution. She is in delicate health, aggravated by stress, and I have asked the council to reconsider their decision to press ahead with what may well be an interesting test case defining a cigarette end, but which will be at the expense of a frail and elderly person. They have referred me to their ‘revised Enforcement Policy’ – which makes for terrifying reading, a fine example of the totalitarian government Sheila’s Father fought so bravely to prevent. (available HERE)
Nick Hogan, who I was instrumental in rescuing from prison after similar council action, has joined with me, the Libertarian Party and the Sunday Mercury, to ensure that Sheila suffers as little as possible from the council’s intransience.
We have already arranged for some very high powered legal representation for her, to put her mind at rest, and I have promised her that she will go to prison ‘over my dead body’ – she is obviously unable to pay this fine, or incremental increases of it, and I have personally guaranteed her that somehow I will make sure that she doesn’t have to pay it herself, nor go to prison.
There is no need for money at present, all the legal beagles so far involved are kindly donating their time and expertise free of charge – although if there are any other lawyers out there who would like to join the team, this is one broth that will not be spoiled by too many cooks. My e-mail address is on the contact section of this blog.
70 years ago we were prepared to ‘fight them on the beaches’ – how appropriate that today we prepare to f’ight them on the Sandwell……’
UPDATE:
CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to raise funds to help an elderly widow who has been threatened with a £2,500 fine for dropping cigarette ash on the pavement.
Sheila Martin, 70, was smoking at a bus stop when a Sandwell Council warden pounced and handed her the £75 fixed penalty for littering.
The frail granny, from Oldbury, has refused to pay – and now faces a £2,500 penalty or even prison.
But on-line campaigners who freed a pub landlord from jail for a similar offence earlier this year have now come forward to lend their support.
Nick Hogan, former landlord of The Swan and Barristers in Bolton, was jailed for six months for failing to pay fines and costs totalling £10,136 after being guilty of allowing customers to light up.
But he walked free after an internet campaign raised £10,000 to secure his early release in just 10 days.
Web blogger Anna Raccoon was instrumental in securing his freedom and has now vowed to help Mrs Martin.
She said: “As a result of articles I wrote, the generosity of my readers and with the co-operation of other bloggers, we managed to raise the money in 10 days and get Nick released from jail.
“Now we are prepared to turn our efforts to helping Sheila Martin. If she does not pay the fine, she could be sent to jail just as Nick Hogan was.
“That is oppressive persecution and we should not stand by and watch an elderly widow treated like this.
“My readers are happy to support Sheila in any way we can, to enable her to fight this penalty.”
Last night Mrs Martin said: “I am so touched by all the support people have been giving me all week.
“I thought I was all alone and now I realise I am not. It has made me feel so much better.”
Simon Clarke, Director of Pro-smoking Group FOREST, also offered his support. He said: “What is happening to her is just another example of the bully state.
“Smokers are easy targets and while we do not condone littering, this case is just a complete overreaction by Sandwell Council.
“We will not allow this frail old lady to be bullied and we will do everything we can to help her.”
I am so angry right now, How can this council take a frail old lady to court over something as trivial as burnt ash.
Spread the word and if you want go to Anna Raccoon's Blog and show your support.
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Is anyone really shocked by this?
The Great Inertia Sector: A whistleblower's account of council work where staff pull six-month sickies
Most of us knew that this was going on, if you have tried to call a council department you know what I mean.
What should happen is that councils should be forced to work under what the private sector has work under. Every penny should be accounted for in every council. It is our money to begin with.
Any person who says they are sick should be forced to go to a known doctor and be assessed.
What has, and is still happening should never of been allowed to happen in the first place. The government should sack any and all slackers in the councils who refuse to change, and replace them with people who want to get things done for their communities.
Will it happen, who knows, but I'm not holding my breath.
Most of us knew that this was going on, if you have tried to call a council department you know what I mean.
What should happen is that councils should be forced to work under what the private sector has work under. Every penny should be accounted for in every council. It is our money to begin with.
Any person who says they are sick should be forced to go to a known doctor and be assessed.
What has, and is still happening should never of been allowed to happen in the first place. The government should sack any and all slackers in the councils who refuse to change, and replace them with people who want to get things done for their communities.
Will it happen, who knows, but I'm not holding my breath.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Another council wasting money.
Status Quo hits back at Brighton council over 'insulting' website
Status Quo have lashed out at Brighton council over a bizarre new recruitment website which declares that fans of the rock band "need not apply" for four executive jobs.
That is the headline to this article
An extract;
Brighton and Hove City Council spent about £10,000 on the website SayNoToStatusQuo.co.uk, which is designed to attract radical candidates for four new £125,000 strategic director posts.
The website's home page is emblazoned with the words "Status Quo fans need not apply" in glittery gold lettering and pink thunderbolts.
Status Quo, who reached the peak of their popularity in the 1970s, now plan to hang a banner reading: "Councillors for Brighton and Hove need not attend" when they perform at the Brighton Centre in December.
Who gave the ok to spend £10,000 on this, and why pick on Status Quo fans?
The taxpayers of Brighton, and the whole country, are the ones who pay for the stupid ideas like this. We should be given value for money for all the millions we pay to the councils of this country.
Every council in the country needs to save money, so why does Brighton council need four £125,000, directors?
I hope the people of Brighton make the councils lives hell over this.
Status Quo have lashed out at Brighton council over a bizarre new recruitment website which declares that fans of the rock band "need not apply" for four executive jobs.
That is the headline to this article
An extract;
Brighton and Hove City Council spent about £10,000 on the website SayNoToStatusQuo.co.uk, which is designed to attract radical candidates for four new £125,000 strategic director posts.
The website's home page is emblazoned with the words "Status Quo fans need not apply" in glittery gold lettering and pink thunderbolts.
Status Quo, who reached the peak of their popularity in the 1970s, now plan to hang a banner reading: "Councillors for Brighton and Hove need not attend" when they perform at the Brighton Centre in December.
Who gave the ok to spend £10,000 on this, and why pick on Status Quo fans?
The taxpayers of Brighton, and the whole country, are the ones who pay for the stupid ideas like this. We should be given value for money for all the millions we pay to the councils of this country.
Every council in the country needs to save money, so why does Brighton council need four £125,000, directors?
I hope the people of Brighton make the councils lives hell over this.
Monday, 26 April 2010
Council Bullies
I found this on Big Brother Watch.
Hauled into court over a cardboard box
The following tale is as classic a Big Brother Watch story as you are likely to find; as The Sun reports:
A grandmother was dragged to court - after carefully leaving a cardboard box next to a council recycling bin.
Lynne had taken the box which held her new washing machine to the recycling point at a Somerfield supermarket near her home in Wickford, Essex, in October.
It was too big to fit in the slot and the bin was nearly full. Lynne, 59, was filmed wedging it between two bins to stop it blowing away. Days later she got a card from Basildon Council asking her to call about "an incident".
An environmental officer later turned up at the fancy dress shop she runs and handed her a £300 fine. She threw it in a bin and ordered him out. On March 22 she received a letter charging her with "depositing controlled waste" and summoning her before JPs.
That's right people - just for putting a cardboard box in-between two bins which were too small to take the full box, Lynne Doyle was fined £300. Many would have been bullied by the council into paying up.
Luckily, Lynne did not...so she was ordered before a court. However on the advice of a lawyer she requested trial by jury. What do you think happened...?
She has now received a letter, without apology or explanation, saying the council was dropping the case.
So Lynne gets threatened with a fine and then trial; but when she pushes back the council retreats. It shouldn't end there - if you are outraged by this action by Basildon, the contact details for their refuse and recycling team are here. Why not ask them why they subjected a 59 year-old women to this ordeal?
By Dylan Sharpe
This is just another council thinking they could get some easy money out of someone.
Why don't they go after the real fly tippers?
The reason is because the councils would have to do some actual work.
Councils have enough workers to do the work, so what are all these workers doing? Not a lot.
Hauled into court over a cardboard box
The following tale is as classic a Big Brother Watch story as you are likely to find; as The Sun reports:
A grandmother was dragged to court - after carefully leaving a cardboard box next to a council recycling bin.
Lynne had taken the box which held her new washing machine to the recycling point at a Somerfield supermarket near her home in Wickford, Essex, in October.
It was too big to fit in the slot and the bin was nearly full. Lynne, 59, was filmed wedging it between two bins to stop it blowing away. Days later she got a card from Basildon Council asking her to call about "an incident".
An environmental officer later turned up at the fancy dress shop she runs and handed her a £300 fine. She threw it in a bin and ordered him out. On March 22 she received a letter charging her with "depositing controlled waste" and summoning her before JPs.
That's right people - just for putting a cardboard box in-between two bins which were too small to take the full box, Lynne Doyle was fined £300. Many would have been bullied by the council into paying up.
Luckily, Lynne did not...so she was ordered before a court. However on the advice of a lawyer she requested trial by jury. What do you think happened...?
She has now received a letter, without apology or explanation, saying the council was dropping the case.
So Lynne gets threatened with a fine and then trial; but when she pushes back the council retreats. It shouldn't end there - if you are outraged by this action by Basildon, the contact details for their refuse and recycling team are here. Why not ask them why they subjected a 59 year-old women to this ordeal?
By Dylan Sharpe
This is just another council thinking they could get some easy money out of someone.
Why don't they go after the real fly tippers?
The reason is because the councils would have to do some actual work.
Councils have enough workers to do the work, so what are all these workers doing? Not a lot.
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Who ever signed this off must be insane.
Check this one out.
This is the shortest cycle lane in Britain
What were Cardiff council thinking when they signed off on this £2000 'cycle lane'.
Once again this is a prime example of how a lack of common sense is required if you work in the councils of the UK.
Whoever signed off on this, and the person who thought of the idea of an 8 foot cycle lane, should be paraded throughout Cardiff and tell all the council taxpayers why it was even thought of.
This is the shortest cycle lane in Britain
What were Cardiff council thinking when they signed off on this £2000 'cycle lane'.
Once again this is a prime example of how a lack of common sense is required if you work in the councils of the UK.
Whoever signed off on this, and the person who thought of the idea of an 8 foot cycle lane, should be paraded throughout Cardiff and tell all the council taxpayers why it was even thought of.
Friday, 19 February 2010
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
I wonder why?
This is the headline to this article;
Councils afraid to say how much they pay chiefs
Council chiefs in England and Wales have refused to disclose the salaries of thousands of senior staff, claiming it would lead to a public outcry.
To get the best people to do a job then you have to pay a decent wage, but we pay these council officials wages and we, the taxpayer, have a right to know what we are paying these people.
An extract from the article;
Councils have been criticised for granting pay rises to officials at a time when householders face increasing council tax bills and, in many cases, poor quality services.
Since 1997-98, the council tax bill for a typical band D property in England and Wales has increased from £688 to £1,414.
My council tax has increased similar to what the article says.
What I want to know is exactly how much of the council tax money is used to pay these council officials, and their pensions, and how much is used on the 'council services' we receive.
As the headline says councils are afraid to publish what they pay these officials, so it makes you wonder exactly how much of OUR money are they paying them.
I for one would like to know.
Councils afraid to say how much they pay chiefs
Council chiefs in England and Wales have refused to disclose the salaries of thousands of senior staff, claiming it would lead to a public outcry.
To get the best people to do a job then you have to pay a decent wage, but we pay these council officials wages and we, the taxpayer, have a right to know what we are paying these people.
An extract from the article;
Councils have been criticised for granting pay rises to officials at a time when householders face increasing council tax bills and, in many cases, poor quality services.
Since 1997-98, the council tax bill for a typical band D property in England and Wales has increased from £688 to £1,414.
My council tax has increased similar to what the article says.
What I want to know is exactly how much of the council tax money is used to pay these council officials, and their pensions, and how much is used on the 'council services' we receive.
As the headline says councils are afraid to publish what they pay these officials, so it makes you wonder exactly how much of OUR money are they paying them.
I for one would like to know.
Friday, 22 January 2010
Social Workers
Here are two stories dealing with social workers and how far they go.
Story 1.
Edlington: report into failures says council treated sadistic brothers as 'naughty boys'
What those two did to those poor boys is horrific, it is beyond anyone's imagination that two children could do that without any sort of remorse.
We see again social workers again failing to do what is right.
A quote from the article;
Education staff at the council failed to take appropriate action when the brothers were excluded from school, which meant that they did not receive any education.
The review concluded that the boys’ behaviour had become so extreme by late 2008 that professionals were “overwhelmed” and lacked the confidence to do anything at all.
How many more times will we see stories like this or like the story of baby Peter.
I don't know the answer to all this is, but it has to change before we lose more children to this evil path of hate and destruction similar to what these two boys did.
Story 2.
Mother 'not clever enough to raise child' has baby snatched by social workers after running away to Ireland to give birth.
This story is about a girl with mild learning difficulties, who was pregnant and went on the run to Ireland to avoid the social services taking her baby away.
Now, if this girl was on her own i could understand the council's position, but she was with the child's father and was in a loving relationship so there was some stability there.
Fife council was alerted and they went to Ireland and took the baby away.
My problem with this is, if they were worried about the baby why didn't they keep a check on the baby and the parents to see if she was being cared for properly. If the baby was being neglected in any way then yes take the baby into care.
You could say social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't, but there has to be a middle ground where the welfare of the child, and in the case of the Edlington boys, the welfare of others in the area must be the priority.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
The Social Workers have been at it again.
I have a question.
If a child is slightly under weight would you feed him junk food, chocolate, sweets and crisps to get his weight up?
I wouldn't, and I'm sure nearly everyone else wouldn't. This couple didn't and for some reason some social workers, from Derbyshire, took the decision to take the child into care.
See Article Here
Here is a quote from the article
But in a decision that surprised the couple, a social worker from Derbyshire County Council later said that Zak needed to go into foster care so they could “assess his needs” and determine how he ate.
The couple, who have four other children aged under 10, were told that if they challenged the decision, social services would “go straight to court” where “all your parental rights would be taken away”.
I am shocked that they take a child into care because he is slightly under weight, but i am even more shocked that they then tell the parents that if they challenge them they will take their rights as parents away.
That is blackmail in my book.
They must of known they were on dodgy ground by taking the child into care. So what do they do, they tell the couple that their parental rights would be taken away if they challenge them.
It took them four months to get their child back, and guess what they fed him, yes junk food.
Another quote from the article;
Eventually they went to court to try to get Zak back, and after four months, he was allowed to return home after gaining less than a pound in four months.
Social services eventually said they were good and caring parents.
If they were good and caring parents why the hell did they take the child away from the parents in the first place?
I know the majority of social workers are genuine hard working and work with parents to see what is best for the child, but the minority of them, who cause unwarranted situations like the one above, have to be taken out of the profession.
If a child is slightly under weight would you feed him junk food, chocolate, sweets and crisps to get his weight up?
I wouldn't, and I'm sure nearly everyone else wouldn't. This couple didn't and for some reason some social workers, from Derbyshire, took the decision to take the child into care.
See Article Here
Here is a quote from the article
But in a decision that surprised the couple, a social worker from Derbyshire County Council later said that Zak needed to go into foster care so they could “assess his needs” and determine how he ate.
The couple, who have four other children aged under 10, were told that if they challenged the decision, social services would “go straight to court” where “all your parental rights would be taken away”.
I am shocked that they take a child into care because he is slightly under weight, but i am even more shocked that they then tell the parents that if they challenge them they will take their rights as parents away.
That is blackmail in my book.
They must of known they were on dodgy ground by taking the child into care. So what do they do, they tell the couple that their parental rights would be taken away if they challenge them.
It took them four months to get their child back, and guess what they fed him, yes junk food.
Another quote from the article;
Eventually they went to court to try to get Zak back, and after four months, he was allowed to return home after gaining less than a pound in four months.
Social services eventually said they were good and caring parents.
If they were good and caring parents why the hell did they take the child away from the parents in the first place?
I know the majority of social workers are genuine hard working and work with parents to see what is best for the child, but the minority of them, who cause unwarranted situations like the one above, have to be taken out of the profession.
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Here's an interesting twist on social workers
I have just read this article in the Telegraph and i am wondering if the social workers from Sussex worked in Haringey, would Baby Peter still be alive.
Why is it that they take the kids away from certain people who may of just come into difficulties recently (for whatever reason) and not from other people where kids, like Baby Peter, need to be taken to a place of safety.
Read the article and have a think about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6073914/Secret-agenda-to-score-adoptions.html
This is the original article about the above story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html
Why is it that they take the kids away from certain people who may of just come into difficulties recently (for whatever reason) and not from other people where kids, like Baby Peter, need to be taken to a place of safety.
Read the article and have a think about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6073914/Secret-agenda-to-score-adoptions.html
This is the original article about the above story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)