Off Topic Politics Thread

[ImpSaint]

My favourite channel the BBC is reporting on Councils saying they will be raising Council Tax. They have someone from Lincoln City Council on the national news channel. Picture of Lincoln Cathedral behind her. She is saying that they need to fund their services properly.

I have no problem with what she is saying (per se) however the BBC choose to illustrate their story by cutting away to videos of Road works while she is talking....

....why is this a problem? Because "pot holes" are constantly brought up as a core subject especially in Lincoln when the council spend any money on anything else. On facebook posts by the Council pot holes and road works are always brought up.

Lincoln City Council always reply to these posts "highways are not City Council, they are County Council."

Council tax is City Council so why has a BBC researcher decided to illustrate a council tax story with roadworks that are not paid for out of Council tax?

 

[VocalMinority]

My favourite channel the BBC is reporting on Councils saying they will be raising Council Tax. They have someone from Lincoln City Council on the national news channel. Picture of Lincoln Cathedral behind her. She is saying that they need to fund their services properly.

I have no problem with what she is saying (per se) however the BBC choose to illustrate their story by cutting away to videos of Road works while she is talking....

....why is this a problem? Because "pot holes" are constantly brought up as a core subject especially in Lincoln when the council spend any money on anything else. On facebook posts by the Council pot holes and road works are always brought up.

Lincoln City Council always reply to these posts "highways are not City Council, they are County Council."

Council tax is City Council so why has a BBC researcher decided to illustrate a council tax story with roadworks that are not paid for out of Council tax?

Since when is county council not a council?


edit: quick google:
"Council tax is collected and shared between City of Lincoln Council, Lincolnshire County Council and the Police Authority to pay for a wide range of public services."

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Since when is county council not a council?


edit: quick google:
"Council tax is collected and shared between City of Lincoln Council, Lincolnshire County Council and the Police Authority to pay for a wide range of public services."

Pot holes are always the responsibility of the County Council, not the local council, and if my experience as a Parish Councillor in Somerset is anything to go by, there are often interminable arguments about such things.

 

[VocalMinority]

Pot holes are always the responsibility of the County Council, not the local council, and if my experience as a Parish Councillor in Somerset is anything to go by, there are often interminable arguments about such things.

I wasn't arguing that part, just pointing out county councils are part of the tax increase as much as city councils, so videos of pots holes are relevant to the story no matter which council they belong to.

 

[ImpSaint]

Since when is county council not a council?


edit: quick google:
"Council tax is collected and shared between City of Lincoln Council, Lincolnshire County Council and the Police Authority to pay for a wide range of public services."

Someone should tell City Council when they reply on facebook (many times a day) that highways costs come out of Central budgets given to the County Council then. They reply that potholes and roadworks are not paid for out of council tax.

 

[ImpSaint]

I wasn't arguing that part, just pointing out county councils are part of the tax increase as much as city councils, so videos of pots holes are relevant to the story no matter which council they belong to.

Not when City Councils say that roadworks and pothole repair are paid for from Central budgets (from government) and not from Council taxes.

 

[VocalMinority]

Not when City Councils say that roadworks and pothole repair are paid for from Central budgets (from government) and not from Council taxes.

Ok, that makes more sense that what you originally wrote. Still, there's no reason the county council can't put their own money into it as well if needed but i get your point.

Still, its better than the old 'we have a hacking story, quick, put on a stock image of a random person using a laptop!'

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Ok, that makes more sense that what you originally wrote. Still, there's no reason the county council can't put their own money into it as well if needed but i get your point.

Still, its better than the old 'we have a hacking story, quick, put on a stock image of a random person using a laptop!'

Except county councils are completely strapped for cash now, and are prevented from raising council tax income by government edict. Somerset CC has been shedding staff to keep going.

 

[ImpSaint]

Except county councils are completely strapped for cash now, and are prevented from raising council tax income by government edict. Somerset CC has been shedding staff to keep going.

They could however apply for their share of the pothole action fund:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cash-for-councils-to-fill-almost-1-million-potholes

 

[Beddy]

The way homeless people are treated, are at times ludicrous. However there is another side of the argument that also needs looking at. I would suggest it needs to be considered what actually made them homeless.
I'll give you two examples of homeless people I actually worked with in the social services on behalf of the forces.
1st example........... Just after the Falklands conflict.........probably around 6/8 months after, in and around Portsmouth, some senior people were allowed to leave the forces. Most had completed 20 years plus and varied in rank from corporal to Lieutenant although not all.
For my first example I've chosen someone with a middle rank with 25 years service. Sadly he had lost his wife and daughter in an accident about 1979 just before he was due to be demobbed, hence why he stayed on and then of course the conflict. When he came out he was obviously homeless and we found him a furnished flat which he could afford and all went well for around a year. His forces pension was more than adequate for his needs so he needed no benefits. The flat evidently was broken into and a lot of damage was done as well as losing so much of his personal effects. The landlord said it was his fault and kicked him out also demanding he paid for the damage. (He had left a second floor window slightly agar) The man did as he was asked but it took all of his spare cash plus he had to pay for the next couple of months the short fall.
I was playing hockey on the civil services ground and happened to see a man go round the back of the changing rooms just as I was going home after the game. I was curious as I was one of the last to leave so went round to look for this person. Only to discover the man had come round the back to doss there for the night. I didn't recognise him at first it was only when I started talking to him that I realised that I knew him. He told me the story.....I was dumbfounded. He said he went to the Social services but was told they couldn't help because he wasn't on benefits!!!!!!! They did give him a voucher to get food but that was all. I raised hell on the Monday as I couldn't do anything until then.
I managed to get him some more money to tied him over but could not get help on the accommodation side of things despite the fact that by now he had been on the streets for a couple of months. I contacted a forces charity and with in hours he had a new place to live although temporary. Would you believe it was only then when he had a home even temporarily, the social services could help him and they did. That was the stupid rules of the bloody time!!!!!!!!!!! Again sadly although I kept in touch with him and his friends he died about 18 months later from pneumonia. He was 61.......
2nd example.................This man had been injured although not in conflict but during training, although he was still quite young. I cant tell you what the injury was, lets just say it left him with a limp. As soon as he left the Forces we were involved. We got him a two bed flat for him his wife and little one.......He was on full benefits rent paid and extra for the child etcetera. Shortly after, His wife walked out on him and the benefits were reduced accordingly. The injury he had was all but healed when he was demobbed. We are now some 2 years down the line...........I had nothing else to do with him since his demob. I was asked to be in on a review meeting of some problem cases. His was one of them. I was surprised to find that despite it now being some 2.5 years since his injury he was still getting the full benefits and apparently he had not attempted any employment. It was handed to me to resolve..........
I had a couple of chats with him and eventually was forced to advise him he would lose his benefits if he didn't try and get work. That was a total waste of time, although he did attend at least a dozen interviews. We received reports from about half of the interviews and the they stated he had a lack of interest, or the hours didn't suite, too difficult, didn't like the company, were just some of the excuses. We had sent him to hospitals for reports and doctors and all said the same. In their opinion he was fit for work. So his benefits were withdrawn. Eventually he then did get a job albeit was only part time. So we were forced to resume some benefits.
The point I am trying to make is, some are homeless through no fault of their own and should be helped. There are those that think the state should pay for them to be idle at home. There are those that prefer to be on the streets although granted they are in the minority. There are those that are on the streets because they don't know how to get help. There are those on the street because they couldn't get enough help supposedly. Finally there are those out there that are in homes that know how to play the system!!!
There are so many rules and regulations and a social worker is hard pressed to get it right every time Rules need to be simplified and we need to be tougher on those that play the system...........Who would be a social worker ............?

 

[VocalMinority]

The way homeless people are treated, are at times ludicrous. However there is another side of the argument that also needs looking at. I would suggest it needs to be considered what actually made them homeless.
I'll give you two examples of homeless people I actually worked with in the social services on behalf of the forces.
1st example........... Just after the Falklands conflict.........probably around 6/8 months after, in and around Portsmouth, some senior people were allowed to leave the forces. Most had completed 20 years plus and varied in rank from corporal to Lieutenant although not all.
For my first example I've chosen someone with a middle rank with 25 years service. Sadly he had lost his wife and daughter in an accident about 1979 just before he was due to be demobbed, hence why he stayed on and then of course the conflict. When he came out he was obviously homeless and we found him a furnished flat which he could afford and all went well for around a year. His forces pension was more than adequate for his needs so he needed no benefits. The flat evidently was broken into and a lot of damage was done as well as losing so much of his personal effects. The landlord said it was his fault and kicked him out also demanding he paid for the damage. (He had left a second floor window slightly agar) The man did as he was asked but it took all of his spare cash plus he had to pay for the next couple of months the short fall.
I was playing hockey on the civil services ground and happened to see a man go round the back of the changing rooms just as I was going home after the game. I was curious as I was one of the last to leave so went round to look for this person. Only to discover the man had come round the back to doss there for the night. I didn't recognise him at first it was only when I started talking to him that I realised that I knew him. He told me the story.....I was dumbfounded. He said he went to the Social services but was told they couldn't help because he wasn't on benefits!!!!!!! They did give him a voucher to get food but that was all. I raised hell on the Monday as I couldn't do anything until then.
I managed to get him some more money to tied him over but could not get help on the accommodation side of things despite the fact that by now he had been on the streets for a couple of months. I contacted a forces charity and with in hours he had a new place to live although temporary. Would you believe it was only then when he had a home even temporarily, the social services could help him and they did. That was the stupid rules of the bloody time!!!!!!!!!!! Again sadly although I kept in touch with him and his friends he died about 18 months later from pneumonia. He was 61.......
2nd example.................This man had been injured although not in conflict but during training, although he was still quite young. I cant tell you what the injury was, lets just say it left him with a limp. As soon as he left the Forces we were involved. We got him a two bed flat for him his wife and little one.......He was on full benefits rent paid and extra for the child etcetera. Shortly after, His wife walked out on him and the benefits were reduced accordingly. The injury he had was all but healed when he was demobbed. We are now some 2 years down the line...........I had nothing else to do with him since his demob. I was asked to be in on a review meeting of some problem cases. His was one of them. I was surprised to find that despite it now being some 2.5 years since his injury he was still getting the full benefits and apparently he had not attempted any employment. It was handed to me to resolve..........
I had a couple of chats with him and eventually was forced to advise him he would lose his benefits if he didn't try and get work. That was a total waste of time, although he did attend at least a dozen interviews. We received reports from about half of the interviews and the they stated he had a lack of interest, or the hours didn't suite, too difficult, didn't like the company, were just some of the excuses. We had sent him to hospitals for reports and doctors and all said the same. In their opinion he was fit for work. So his benefits were withdrawn. Eventually he then did get a job albeit was only part time. So we were forced to resume some benefits.
The point I am trying to make is, some are homeless through no fault of their own and should be helped. There are those that think the state should pay for them to be idle at home. There are those that prefer to be on the streets although granted they are in the minority. There are those that are on the streets because they don't know how to get help. There are those on the street because they couldn't get enough help supposedly. Finally there are those out there that are in homes that know how to play the system!!!
There are so many rules a regulations and a social worker is hard pressed to get it right every time Rules need to be simplified and we need to be tougher on those that play the system...........Who would be a social worker ............?

Yeah completely agree. Peoples circumtances are very unique to them and the benefit system is just not flexible enough take unto account a persons Individual needs.

On that first example, I just want to give a social landlords perspective because I feel it important people understand this.

In general we cover repairs of the natural degradation of the property. Anything caused by a person is not natural and is not usually something covered by us so we would charge the resident for it no matter who caused it. Criminal damage is generally a insurance matter. You claim on your insurance then if there's a conviction the insurer claims it from the criminal.
Flats tend to have building insurance scheme from the landlord for the whole building that you will be included in (but still pay for) but rented homes don't.

Now you'e example seems to have been from quite a long time ago? So a lot has changed since then. Theres lots of protection for residents. We would look to create a repayment scheme over quite a long time. Kicking a resident out means writing off the debt after all, we would rather they repay it.

But again, it highlights the need to have people supported in understanding all of this.


Finally, use some more gaps in your paragraphs man, that was more of a wall than the average Imp post .

 

[ImpSaint]

Yeah completely agree. Peoples circumtances are very unique to them and the benefit system is just not flexible enough take unto account a persons Individual needs.

On that first example, I just want to give a social landlords perspective because I feel it important people understand this.

In general we cover repairs of the natural degradation of the property. Anything caused by a person is not natural and is not usually something covered by us so we would charge the resident for it no matter who caused it. Criminal damage is generally a insurance matter. You claim on your insurance then if there's a conviction the insurer claims it from the criminal.
Flats tend to have building insurance scheme from the landlord for the whole building that you will be included in (but still pay for) but rented homes don't.

Now you'e example seems to have been from quite a long time ago? So a lot has changed since then. Theres lots of protection for residents. We would look to create a repayment scheme over quite a long time. Kicking a resident out means writing off the debt after all, we would rather they repay it.

But again, it highlights the need to have people supported in understanding all of this.


Finally, use some more gaps in your paragraphs man, that was more of a wall than the average Imp post .

Lookedfinetome.

 

[Beddy]

Yeah completely agree. Peoples circumtances are very unique to them and the benefit system is just not flexible enough take unto account a persons Individual needs.

On that first example, I just want to give a social landlords perspective because I feel it important people understand this.

In general we cover repairs of the natural degradation of the property. Anything caused by a person is not natural and is not usually something covered by us so we would charge the resident for it no matter who caused it. Criminal damage is generally a insurance matter. You claim on your insurance then if there's a conviction the insurer claims it from the criminal.
Flats tend to have building insurance scheme from the landlord for the whole building that you will be included in (but still pay for) but rented homes don't.

Now you'e example seems to have been from quite a long time ago? So a lot has changed since then. Theres lots of protection for residents. We would look to create a repayment scheme over quite a long time. Kicking a resident out means writing off the debt after all, we would rather they repay it.

But again, it highlights the need to have people supported in understanding all of this.


Finally, use some more gaps in your paragraphs man, that was more of a wall than the average Imp post .

Sorry about the gaps..........In my first example I was trying more to explain the honesty and integrity of the gentleman involved as well as how the social services supposedly found their hands tied.

 

[VocalMinority]

Sorry about the gaps..........In my first example I was trying more to explain the honesty and integrity of the gentleman involved as well as how the social services supposedly found their hands tied.

I completely got that and agree, I was just trying to raise awareness as so many people think all their repairs will be covered then land themselves in debt like the person you mentioned.

 

[Missing Lambo]

Nice post, Beddy and we'll forgive you your length (oh behave, this isn't the Dick Emery Show). I rarely meet someone who is homeless/having a **** time when I don't think how easy it is for anyone to get to that point. The govt. didn't like the Daniel Blake film as it suggested that a hard working bloke who "did the right thing" (as The Tories love to say) could find himself in lumber due to ill health. I have to tell you that our local foodbank hears a similar story weekly. We've become a heartless society, and the blaming of the homeless and disadvantaged is a symptom.

 

[benditlikeabanana]

Finland is half way through a 2 year trial of a basic income system. 2000 then unemployed people got about a flat 500 pounds a month and will get the same amount even if they find a job. The people that proposed the trial are adamant that it will be a cost cutting system, cutting out all the bullshit and hoops people have to jump through, and also cut out the scammers. It will be interesting what the results will be

 

[Missing Lambo]

Not a party political matter, but definitely political, is the decision of The Vue to not screen "Voices of The Silenced". I note they are being attacked from both sides, which is about par for the course. Is this a little like Universities not giving a platform to certain political views?

Personally I find Christian groups that advocate "gay cures" a bit like the ones who abuse women outside abortion clinics. They're positively medieval. Interested in other views.

 

[ImpSaint]

I'm a bit lost on all this stuff these days. The BBC announced yesterday that new film that has an (nearly) all black cast as being representative of a new diversity which confused me because it looks to me to be just a different form of uniformity. I thought diverse would mean a variety within the film. Not just making black films and white films so you could choose to follow a tribe.

Never heard of the Vue.............but then I'd never heard of the "black panther" until wednesday when apparently it has been much anticipated. Did they keep quiet about it so that it met no resistance from all the white folk who are all racist and would kick up a fuss? Seems the tactics were to sneak it up to the release date not giving the gazillions of white folk time to mobilise. Of course it meant they could then saturate the news with how good it is to have an "all black" film but not good to have an "all white" film and then have "all black panels" in their news and current affairs rooms to tell us all how much we have moved on now because we can discriminate against whitey just like they do against "minorities."

Great stuff discrimination all round. Thats equality for ya. Glad we are progressing.

 

[VocalMinority]

I'm a bit lost on all this stuff these days. The BBC announced yesterday that new film that has an (nearly) all black cast as being representative of a new diversity which confused me because it looks to me to be just a different form of uniformity. I thought diverse would mean a variety within the film. Not just making black films and white films so you could choose to follow a tribe.

Never heard of the Vue.............but then I'd never heard of the "black panther" until wednesday when apparently it has been much anticipated. Did they keep quiet about it so that it met no resistance from all the white folk who are all racist and would kick up a fuss? Seems the tactics were to sneak it up to the release date not giving the gazillions of white folk time to mobilise. Of course it meant they could then saturate the news with how good it is to have an "all black" film but not good to have an "all white" film and then have "all black panels" in their news and current affairs rooms to tell us all how much we have moved on now because we can discriminate against whitey just like they do against "minorities."

Great stuff discrimination all round. Thats equality for ya. Glad we are progressing.

Problem with what you are saying is then you just tend up with a token black guy.

you need a diversity of films for a diverse audience. this is the first marvel film with an all black cast, thus the mention.

Take the marvel Nextflix TV series. you have 2 series with a white male lead with a largely white cast, one with a white female lead and one with a black lead and a black cast as well as one where they all get together and work together. So you have something for everybody. Thats diversity. The cinematic universe didn't have that kind of diversity which is why the BBC is promoting it.

 

[San Tejón]

Trinity Mirror have purchased the Express and Daily Star, including the Sunday versions.
They say that they will remain editorially independent, but I would like to see, in the absence of integrity and honest reporting, them move away from being Tory mouthpieces and try and level the political playing field, with regards to the written media.
I am convinced that many newspaper readers vote for the party their chosen newspaper supports, because of the way they slant stories. My dear old, non computer using, dad did.
If Murdoch could buy get on with Corbyn as he did with Blair, his papers would switch sides again.