FlyTheNest

And lo the Lord sayeth encourage hate against the burdensome terminally ill and make them pay for their sins.

No me,neither.

The oft repeated quote of course was specifically against the real leeches.

Some sort of similar national arrangement as trains for buses would be good for accompany travel.Relatively lucky here with cheaper options and I used outwith but no discounts etc for without which free travel was practically useless.

PTO x3

Is someone going to come clean at some point and tell us this is in fact a parody account?

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More
DOJ just issued the McCabe report - which is a total disaster. He LIED! LIED! LIED! McCabe was totally controlled by Comey - McCabe is Comey!! No collusion, all made up by this den of thieves and lowlifes!

I really don't know whether to go or

The night before the morning I looked at the US presidential election results news, I posted here I'd decline to acknowledge the man as US president. I've had no change of strategy or heart. Stare beyond the character, cause no harm and when necessary, rely upon grace.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ry-housing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

England: escalation in placement of homeless families in temporary housing

To be filed under 'this will never ever happen' but I've often thought that one way you could try to make the benefits' system more equitable and just would be to insist that the tax system had to work under the same principles. So, for example, if Jeremy Hunt has bought ten BTL luxury apartments, he should be paying tax on a notional 'minimum rental income floor' for those apartment regardless of how much rental income he actually received (even if it was none).

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

https://www.ft.com/content/81eedd98-25d ... 62a39d57a0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


English councils face cash crunch as social care costs bite
Local authorities run down reserves in face of government funding cuts

48 per cent of England’s 353 councils showed a decline in their reserves between March 2015 and March 2017, according to an FT analysis.
Of those with social care obligations, 70 per cent reported drops in their reserves.
Pressure on council finances has come a central issue in the run-up to next month’s local elections.
Nearly half of the councils in England have run down their financial reserves in the past two years, with many struggling to cope with a pincer movement of cuts to central government funding and rising social care costs.

A total of 169 of England’s 353 local authorities, or 48 per cent, recorded real-terms falls in their reserves between March 2015 and March 2017, according to FT analysis.

The remaining authorities increased their reserves, but they were mostly smaller district councils that do not manage social care to support the elderly and the disabled.

The strain on council finances has become a central issue in the run-up to next month’s local elections, with opposition parties blaming the Conservative government for squeezed local budgets.

Pressure builds as costs rise
Last month, Sajid Javid, the local government secretary, sent a team to take over Tory-led Northamptonshire County Council’s finances after it imposed emergency spending controls.

The East Midland authority recorded a 62 per cent decline in its reserves between 2015 and 2017, which it said had been used in part “to mitigate the need for higher spending in key areas such as social care”.

Councils cut the unit costs of social care almost 10 per cent between 2010 and 2015. But since then, unit costs have been rising, according to the Institute for Government.

Whitehall officials said no other council had approached Mr Javid to suggest they were facing the same risk of financial breakdown

But Rob Whiteman, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, warned that if reserves were run down and an unexpected cost or emergency “suddenly rears its head”, a council’s financial stability could “come unstuck”.

Breaking the piggy bank
There are no set rules on the amount of reserves councils should hold, but the funds give local authorities the flexibility to respond to emergencies such as flooding or natural disasters or pay for one-off costs like investments in service upgrades.

Central government funding for local authorities has been reduced in real terms by 49 per cent between 2010-11 and 2017-18, according to the National Audit Office, parliament’s spending watchdog.

When austerity policies were first introduced in 2010, councils embarked on major cost-cutting initiatives and sought to build up their reserves as a cushion against financial pressures.




But more recently, many have been unable to make further savings and have instead responded by raising council tax, with some also dipping into their reserves to help pay for frontline services such as bin collections or road repairs.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that reserves for councils in England peaked at £24.8bn in 2014-15, but fell to £23.1bn in 2016-17. The OBR has forecast that reserves will fall further, to £20.2bn in 2020-21.

Jonathan Carr-West, head of the Local Government Information Unit, said: “If you’re using [reserves] on an annual basis to fund services that’s not an appropriate use. We know a lot of councils are dipping into their reserves in a way they weren’t in 2010.”

Social care bites
Of the 169 councils whose reserves showed a real-terms decline in the two-year period studied, 11 recorded falls of at least 40 per cent. Of the 152 councils with social care responsibilities, 106 ran down their reserves.

The Tory-led council in Thurrock, Essex, reported the biggest fall in its reserves — a drop of 65 per cent to £11.8m.

The council said the fall was largely the result of paying to get out of a services contract with outsourcing group Serco five years early in 2015. The amount of reserves held for schools also fell due to an accounting change when multiple schools became academies and were moved out of local authority control.

The council said reserves had also been invested in unspecified “change programmes” designed to generate long-term savings, but had not been used to fund frontline services.

Somerset county council, which is run by Conservatives and saw a 54 per cent decline in reserves, said its account balance had been abnormally high in 2015 because central government had provided more than £20m in one-off funding following the winter floods of 2013-14.

The council said some of its reserves had been used to balance its budget and a “substantial proportion” of overspending was related to children’s services.

Labour-run Southwark in London recorded a 50 per cent decline in reserves, but declined to comment on the fall. Minutes from a council meeting in 2017 noted the “continued uncertainties” surrounding funding for adult social care and children’s services following rising demand.

The minutes also warned of “the reducing level of reserves and balances available” to cushion the council against future funding cuts.

Reading Borough Council, which is also run by Labour, recorded a 49 per cent decline. The council said reserves had been used partly to fund social services for adults and children, to offset £7.5m in overspending on children’s social care and £2.2m in overspending on adult social care in 2016-17.

“While the council has made every effort to drive up efficiency and income, there is no doubt that many services have been impacted by the sheer volume of funding constraints over the past eight years,” said council leader Jo Lovelock. “The cost of caring and protecting the most vulnerable adults and children in Reading will rise by at least £10m next year.

“That is more than double what a 5.99 per cent council tax increase will raise,” she added, in a reference to the maximum amount local authorities can raise council tax by without holding a local referendum.

In Bristol, where the Labour-run council’s reserves fell 44 per cent, Labour councillor Craig Cheney said the reduction was “largely planned”, but the council had faced “additional pressures primarily from increased costs and demand in social care”.

“The government’s continuing failure to deal with the social care crisis is having a big impact at a local level and consequently we’ve had to use some of our reserves to protect vital frontline services,” he said.

Ministers are currently consulting on a “fair funding review” that will determine how resources are distributed to local authorities from 2020.

“We don’t actually know how local government is going to be funded post-2020,” said Mr Carr-West. “Why are people not scandalised by this?”

The cheapest and most effective way of course to deal with the self inflicted "problem",increasingly under attack and eviscerated concurrent with vast cost savers in arse about facery scandalous misrepresentation.A national disgrace,more mooted.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 460ae9fb8e" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"Seemingly shambolic"


DLA was working rather well and adapting,Labour equally were going to change it.Politicos are generally a "bit dim" and/or don't get the fundamental principles beyond meaningless (to them) spiel.

A rise in a vast cost saving,independence enhancing allowance isn't a problem,we are seeing the ,somewhat obvious,consequences of treating it,as if it was/is.

Only one aspect of independent living facillitation or the opposite, social care,intrinsically linked as it is and the musings show the same level of ignorance and very worrying indeed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... ttack-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Trump says strikes have been ordered against Assad regime – live

Pah,everybody is in bed/asleep.




http://www.freeintertv.com/view/id-200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coun ... al-wedding" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


News story

Country in full swing to party for the royal wedding


Fuck off.

Off with my head

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-s ... april-2018" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Prime Minister Theresa May:

This evening I have authorised British armed forces to conduct co-ordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use.

We are acting together with our American and French allies.

In Douma, last Saturday a chemical weapons attack killed up to 75 people, including young children, in circumstances of pure horror.

The fact of this attack should surprise no-one.

The Syrian Regime has a history of using chemical weapons against its own people in the most cruel and abhorrent way.

And a significant body of information including intelligence indicates the Syrian Regime is responsible for this latest attack.

This persistent pattern of behaviour must be stopped – not just to protect innocent people in Syria from the horrific deaths and casualties caused by chemical weapons but also because we cannot allow the erosion of the international norm that prevents the use of these weapons.

We have sought to use every possible diplomatic channel to achieve this.

But our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted. Even this week the Russians vetoed a Resolution at the UN Security Council which would have established an independent investigation into the Douma attack.

So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Regime.

This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change.

It is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties.

And while this action is specifically about deterring the Syrian Regime, it will also send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity.

At this time, my thoughts are with our brave British servicemen and women – and our French and American partners – who are carrying out their duty with the greatest professionalism.

The speed with which we are acting is essential in co-operating with our partners to alleviate further humanitarian suffering and to maintain the vital security of our operations.

This is the first time as Prime Minister that I have had to take the decision to commit our armed forces in combat – and it is not a decision I have taken lightly.

I have done so because I judge this action to be in Britain’s national interest.

We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised – within Syria, on the streets of the UK, or anywhere else in our world.

We would have preferred an alternative path. But on this occasion there is none.

History teaches us that the international community must defend the global rules and standards that keep us all safe.

That is what our country has always done. And what we will continue to do.

Syrian state TV says anti-aircraft weapons are being used against jets conducting air strikes. A district in Damascus, Barzeh, which houses a scientific laboratory, has been hit, according to one Reuters witness.

The US is using Tomahawk cruise missiles in its strikes in Syria, and taking aim at multiple targets in the country, a US official has told Reuters. This would tally with CNN reports that ships and aircraft form part of the attack.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence has given details of its involvement in tonight’s strikes.

It says four RAF Tornados flew from Cyprus and fired Storm Shadow missiles at a former missile base in Syria, near Homs, where the Syrian government was believed to have kept chemical weapon precursors.

Further explosions are being heard in Damascus. CNN is quoting a senior administration official saying “this isn’t over” and that tonight is just the first wave of a “multi-wave” attack.

three sites have been hit.

The first target was a science research facility in the greater Damascus area. The second was a storage facility west of Homs they believe held precursor chemicals and sarin. The third was a chemical storage depot and “important command post”.

Russia: there will be 'consequences'
Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to the US, has responded to the air strikes in Damascus and Homs. He says Moscows warnings have been left unheard and that Russia is being threatened. “We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences,” he says.

He says “insulting the president of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible” and that the US, as a holder of chemical weapons, has no moral right to blame other countries.

Gavin Williamson, the UK defence secretary, said: “The reprehensible use of chemical weapons in Douma is further evidence of the Syrian regime’s appalling cruelty against its own people. We will not stand by whilst innocent civilians, including women and children, are killed and made to suffer.

“The international community has responded decisively with legal and proportionate military force. Let these united actions send a clear message to the regime – the use of chemical weapons is categorically unacceptable and you will be held to account.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/w ... &smtyp=cur" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"President Trump Talked Tough. But His Strike on Syria Was Restrained."

WASHINGTON — In sending missiles and bombs at Syria, President Trump hit more targets and used more firepower than he did in a similar military strike last year. But in the end, he opted for what was still a restrained operation that was evidently calculated to avoid provoking Syria’s patrons in Russiaand Iran into retaliating.

http://m.france24.com/en/breaking/20180 ... w?ref=tw_i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Strikes on Syria did not hit areas near Russian bases: Moscow"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 516757002/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Russian ambassador calls Trump 'Adolf Hitler No. 2 of our time'"

Alexander Sherin, deputy head of the State Duma’s defense committee, said Trump “can be called Adolf Hitler No. 2 of our time – because, you see, he even chose the time that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.” The Nazi forces’ opening attack against the USSR in 1941 was launched around 4 a.m., the same time in Russian that Friday's attack occurred.