Shaken But Not Stirred

NINTCHDBPICT000396451280.jpg

The Duke of Edinburgh was pulling out of a driveway onto a rural A road when his vehicle was smashed on its side. Yet, the fiercely independent royal, 97 was, in fact, uninjured after the 4×4 he was driving was T-boned and then overturned on the A419 at Babingley, Norfolk at 3 pm.

Observers have reported how they pulled the Prince from his wrecked vehicle which had flipped over onto the driver’s door.

prince-philip-crash-video.mp4.00_00_17_20.Still008.jpg

A royal bodyguard with the Prince at the time also emerged uninjured, and those who saw the collision said the ageing royal was shaken after his vehicle turned over after being T-boned and left with a broken windscreen.

NINTCHDBPICT000462582937-e1547795802192.jpg

The people that helped to get him out of his vehicle said he was conscious but somewhat shaken, and there was loads of police around, and Prince Philip who miraculously walked away from the collision was then cared for by royal doctors and the Queen by his side.

The people in the other vehicle were two females and a baby who was treated in hospital but have since been discharged, but, Prince Philip and the driver of the Kia people carrier were breath tested which presented negative readings.

The female driver of the Kia sustained injuries while the female passenger sustained an arm injury, both needing hospital treatment, but the road remained accessible and both vehicles were collected a short time later.

Jordan Andrew, 21, who’s a builder at his dad’s home maintenance company recorded the collision scene while travelling with a colleague who was driving said that he wondered why there were so many unmarked police cars and flashing lights at the scene.

There was a black range rover with flashing lights which clearly belonged to the police, and there was also a black BMW X5 which had flashing lights, and Jordan said he only realised the significance of the collision when he got a news alert on his phone when he arrived home.

Dramatic images show the royal vehicle on its side following the unexpected encounter, and the Archbishop of York tweeted a prayer for the Prince following the collision. But the collision comes after safety experts had warned of the heightened risks of older motorists getting behind a wheel.

Figures show that in 2018, the amount of motorist aged above 70 years old are referred by the DVLA for further examination, which went up by 20 per cent, and under the law, Prince Philip would have had to reapply for his licence once he attained the age of 70.

Nevertheless, there is no examination or test but a declaration has to be made, and once over 70, a person has to reapply for their licence every three years, including the Prince.

But clearly Prince Philip needs to stop driving, and very clearly at the age of 97 he’s too old to drive, and he should never have been pulling out of a driveway onto the main road, but fortunately for him the vehicle was armour plated so he dodged grave injury, but for the people in the other vehicle it could have been so much different, especially with a baby in the car.

The only shocking element in all of this that he’s still allowed to drive, and those other people in their car could have died, could the monarchy have that on their conscience?

The Royal estate must have lots of private roads he can drive on if he needs to drive, and we should question why he drives when he has people that can chauffeur him about, and they shouldn’t be waiving the test for him simply because he’s a Prince.

He shouldn’t have been driving, yet another instance of there being one rule for one and not the other, but the palace was keen to reassure us that he wasn’t hurt but gave no consideration of mentioning that no one else was injured either.

This man is 97 with continued long-standing health problems which makes him self-indulgent, thoughtless and poorly behaved, and whoever was at fault it was he who was definitely “shaken but not stirred.”

Gosport Hospital Deaths

p06bmqz1.jpg

There seems to have been substantial evidence to bring criminal charges following the deaths of hundreds of patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital when there was an inquiry in June.

An inquiry in June last year discovered more than 450 patients died after being given dangerous levels of drugs, and Dr Jane Barton, the GP at the heart of the scandal, prescribed potent opioid painkillers to elderly patients.

Hampshire Constabulary previously investigated the hospital three times, but no charges have ever been made against them, or Dr Jane Barton.

Numerous patients who died had been transferred to the hospital to recover from surgeries, and former Assistant Chief Constable Steve Watts who led the third and biggest investigation into the 94 deaths said that he thought that the evidence was adequate to take the case to court.

He believed it was strong enough now, that it was strong enough then, and that he believes there was a determining public interest in doing so, but throughout the investigations, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) looked at viable charges of manslaughter and murder in relation to Dr Barton and some nurses who administered the drugs.

Yet, prosecutors determined there was not a reasonable possibility of securing convictions, and even though Mr Watts knew what the response of the families was going to be, and he knew what the response of the public was going to be, and recollected speaking to the prosecutors saying that it would finish up in a public enquiry and ultimately that the matter would go before a court.

Police in Hampshire handed the matter over to their colleagues in Kent and Essex who are now examining the evidence to determine if a fourth police inquiry is needed, and witness accounts provided to the police earlier are being investigated.

The police were told that they believed that diamorphine had been given continuously to patients by a syringe driver and that it did shorten patients lives, and one auxiliary nurse said that it got to the stage that every time Dr Barton came to the annexe, the nurse would think “who’s going to die now?”

In another statement, a staff nurse said that it appeared that most patients were going on drivers even when they were not in pain, and another nurse said they thought the drug was used to keep the waiting lists down.

Yet, former nurse Sheelagh Joines, who was sister on Gosport’s Daedalus Ward between 1993 and 1997, disagreed, and as far as she was concerned Dr Barton didn’t shorten any lives on her ward.

She said that they were nursed to the best of her ability and that they had what every patient was entitled to, a peaceful, pain-free, dignity – a dignified death.

But she further added that at one stage the ward felt like a dumping ground and that the patients were transferred to Gosport in the belief that they could rehabilitate them, which they tried, but that it quickly became clear that they were nursing care, and that they had damn good nursing care, but that they were not rehabilitated.

However, an inquiry discovered in June more than 450 patients died after doctors gave them dangerous levels of the drugs, and three earlier inquiries into 92 of the mortality by Hampshire Constabulary ended in no charges being brought against them.

But now there’s a new inquiry which is being led by Assistant Chief Constable Nick Downing, head of serious crime at Kent and Essex Police, however, the inquiry by the Gosport Independent Panel stated the quality of earlier police inquiries had been consistently poor.

It found whistleblowers and families were disregarded as they ventured to raise concerns about the regime of medication on the wards, which was overseen by Dr Jane Barton, and there was a disregard for human life of a substantial number of patients from 1989 to 2000.

Dr Barton retired after being found guilty by a medical panel of shortcomings in her care of 12 patients at Gosport between 1996 and 1999. But this is utterly horrifying, however, Hampshire Constabulary said it would step back from any future police investigations because families trust in the force had been destroyed.

The extent of the inquiry, which will begin in September, has not yet been decided, the force said, but Charles Farthing, whose stepfather Brian Cunningham died at the hospital said that earlier police inquiries had been a misuse of public funds.

This has all been utterly shocking and nothing has come out of it, and Charles Farthing wants to see criminal charges pressed.

In August 1998 ninety one-year-old Gladys Richards died at Gosport War Memorial Hospital where she was recuperating from a hip operation, she had suffered a haematoma, a mass caused by coagulated blood, but diamorphine was given through a syringe driver.

And in September 1998 Mrs Richard’s daughter Gillian McKenzie went to Hampshire police and claimed that her mother was prescribed too much morphine, but no charges were brought against the hospital.

In April 2000 another police inquiry was started after numerous families came forward with concerns, but again no charges were made, and the General Medical Council were further made aware of the concerns relating to Dr Jane Barton.

In April 2001 the Police Alert Commission for Healthcare Improvement (CHI) also looked into four more deaths and two others were drawn to the attention of the NHS Ombudsman, but they later suspended their inquiries. Then in June 2002 Mrs McKenzie urged the GMC to formally investigate Dr Barton and was told that there were no grounds for any action.

In July 2002 the CHI report reprimands the hospital’s administration in the prescript and control of diamorphine, and then in September 2002, the police began a third investigation and the Chief Medical Officer ordered an independent review into the deaths.

And in September 2006 the police files on 10 deaths were presented to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). However, in October 2006 the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was inadequate evidence to prosecute any of the health professionals.

But then in May 2008 police reports were passed to the Portsmouth coroner, David Horsely, and in May, Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced an investigation into the 10 deaths. Then in April 2009 a jury inquest at the Portsmouth Coroner’s Court ruled that at least five of the elderly patients who died were overprescribed powerful painkillers that accelerated their deaths, but the police still did not re-investigate.

gosport.jpg

In January 2010 Dr Jane Barton was found guilty of grave professional misconduct by the General Medical Council but wasn’t struck off, but she retired shortly after, and in the August, the CPS then said that there was inadequate evidence to prosecute Dr Barton for gross negligence manslaughter, but the families of the victims reprimanded the decision.

In April 2013 Coroner David Horsley determined that painkillers and sedatives given to Gladys Richards at GWMH more than significantly contributed to her death, and he gave a narrative verdict at the end of her inquest.

In August 2013 the Department of Health (DOH) published a clinical review of care covering the period 1998-2000. The review concluded that practice of almost routine use of opiates before death had been followed in the care of patients and that the practice had almost unquestionably shortened the lives of some patients.

In July 2014 the government announced an inquiry into the deaths of dozens of patients at GWMH to be led by the former Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones, who led the Hillsborough inquiry, and in December 2014 Care Minister Norman Lamb said that there were pending questions that lingered about the care of the patients who died, and the police investigated those deaths of the 92 patients but didn’t bring about any prosecutions.

In November 2016 the government said the report’s publication had been pushed back as a consequence of the larger amount of families now in contact with the panel, and in June 2018 an independent panel report showed that patients died after being given strong painkillers inappropriately at Gosport War Memorial Hospital.

But what exactly was the decisive turning point that helped expose the scandal at Gosport War Memorial Hospital in which hundreds of patients met their untimely deaths?

A panel of objective experts started by studying the mortality of 163 patients, but what they discovered prompted them to examine more than 2,000 deaths between 1987 and 2001, and research unveiled that 71 patients in the initial group had been given strong painkilling drugs without proper clinical evidence, and this discovery made the panel very concerned.

One of the patients was 91-year-old Sheila Gregory. Admitted in 1999. She was given diamorphine for no apparent reason and died a day later.

Diamorphine is the medical name for heroin, and it’s generally stored for patients suffering intolerable pain, sometimes in their closing hours before death, but like 62 other members of the group, the cause of Ms Gregory’s death was listed as bronchopneumonia.

Helena Service was the oldest patients to die. The 99-year-old was given diamorphine through a syringe driver, pumping the dose at a fixed flow into her body, but the inquiry judged that she was one of those given opioid painkillers without proper medical justification.

The rationale provided for administering diamorphine was that she was restless, and Ms Service died two days after she was admitted on 5 June 1997 from congestive cardiac failure, according to hospital reports.

More than 450 patients died after being given strong painkillers inappropriately at Gosport War Memorial Hospital, and taking into account the absent records, an additional 200 patients may have undergone a similar end to their lives.

The report determined that there was a disregard for human life of a great number of patients from 1989 to 2000.

Doctors are expected to preserve life and cause no harm, and the Hippocratic Oath, penned 2,500 years ago, includes the line: “I will use treatments for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and my judgment, but from what is to their harm and injustice I will keep them.”

But a report published found more than 450 patients died earlier than they would have after being given strong painkillers inappropriately at Gosport War Memorial Hospital.

So, who is this doctor who actively shortened her patients’ lives? She is Dr Jane Ann Barton, now aged 70, who graduated from Oxford University in 1972 as a Bachelor of Medicine.

She became a GP and served at Forton Medical Centre in Gosport, and was employed for five sessions a week as a clinical assistant in the Department of Medicine for Elderly People at Gosport War Memorial Hospital from 1 May 1988 until her departure on 5 July 2000.

While at the hospital she was accountable for the care of people occupying 44 beds, but during her 12 years at the hospital, Dr Barton signed 854 death certificates, and of the patients she treated, 94 per cent had received opiates, with limited evidence of the three analgesia steps recommended in palliative care, which was non-opiate, then weak opiate, then strong opiate.

And a former health minister has attacked the NHS of closing ranks following the deaths in hospital of elderly patients from alleged overprescribed painkiller drugs, and that the NHS and elements of Whitehall had refused to face up to the hard and harsh realities.

It’s really horrific and there’s been an extremely systemic failure with the closing of ranks and a feeling that ordinary people merely weren’t being listened to at all, plus there was an unwillingness by the NHS to face up to some extraordinarily grave accusations about what had occurred in the hospital.

The former minister remembered his response when he was told by the Department of Health officials in 2013 when an email was forwarded to him on holiday in France, that a public enquiry should not be held.

He was incandescent about this so instantly sensed that there might have been a collusion to cloak this up while he was out of the country.

To this day he doesn’t know whether it was a cock-up or a cover-up but it was pretty explicit in his mind that there must on no account be a statement made the following day.

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t disregard all the good that most staff that work for the NHS do, but of course, it’s these other kinds of people who give it a bad name and should be held responsible for their actions, and we should further recognise that it was NHS nurses that blew the whistle on the drug policy so we should not tar them all with the same brush because we do have some excellent nurses that work in the NHS.

Sadly, it takes so long for the truth to come out, and it will probably take more years before we become cognizant of what’s actually going on because these kinds of scenarios are continually swept under the rug, and then everybody closes ranks.

The one thing that we should remember is that drs are not Gods, they’re human beings, and we should trust no one because human beings make mistakes or decisions that end up taking lives because they really do think that they are God!

 

Heartbreaking Universal Credit

p06qlc0j.jpg

Top Tory Amber Rudd has been cited of shrugging off heartbreaking Universal Credit stories by insinuating they are about one or two people, that’s almost as bad as saying “whatever.” What planet does she even live on because it certainly isn’t the one we live on.

Is she actually that dumb or was it that when God was giving out brains she thought he said trains and asked for a slow one?

The Work and Pensions Secretary made the remark after being confronted by the Mirror over imperfections in the six-in-one benefit, but obviously, she doesn’t believe that there are any flaws but then she’s still on that train. Come on Amber Rudd, catch up, really, is that train that slow? Or perhaps it’s because they’ve all been privatised!

For years stories have been covered, ranging from imperfections in the system affecting millions, to struggling readers who’ve been forced to food banks, but Amber Rudd has now stated that some of those criticisms that have come from various papers have been based on one or two particular individuals where the advice hasn’t worked for them.

The number of people on Universal Credit as of 14 June 2018 was 980 thousand, but only one or two of those individuals were affected by this advise that hasn’t worked for them. Oh, come on now Amber Rudd, what did you suffer from, Dyscalculia at school, or was your maths that good that you learnt how to manipulate the numbers?

And then she had the temerity to say that Universal Credit was delivered with competence, diligence and kindness, but that’s so not right and she’s so out of touch with what really goes on. So, leaving people without any money between 4-6 weeks is managing the situation with skill, care and compassion, really?

The whole configuration of the policy puts people in debt and the benefits cuts following its inception have made it far worse, but after Amber Rudd was questioned she said that perhaps things that were proposed previously weren’t effective or weren’t compassionate in the way that they should be.

Amber, trying to shovel yourself out of a hole isn’t going to help you, and I detect some quagmire in there, but she’s not going down without a fight, not that it’s going to do her much good, hurry up Amber, you’re fading!

She was further asked if she could, hand on heart, say it was compassionate to double Universal Credit claimants and to keep the two-child limit and keep the benefits freeze until 2020, but clearly she couldn’t put her hand on her heart, instead responding that the overall product that is Universal Credit is definitely compassionate.

She said that Universal Credit needed improving, well, shouldn’t that have been done before the rollout? Because clearly the system was not fail-proof, and there wasn’t enough care that went into it, they simply rolled it out nonetheless without a thought in the world, so there was no compassion at all.

It might have been a vital reform in there eyes but delivering a fair and humane welfare system, there was nothing fair and humane in that at all, they simply wanted to try and save some money to fill their own pockets.

She said that the old system was broken, it wasn’t broken at all, it’s worked for years, it might have needed a little tweaking here and there, but you know what they say, “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” But they didn’t want responsibility anymore, sending money to the recipient for their housing, knowing damn well that some of these people are not able to tally up their finances, and that they would get into debt and end up being thrown out of their homes with nowhere to go, well done Amber Rudd, I really do hope you sleep well at night, because some of these poor sods don’t, I can assure you, but then some people embrace the truth, others like Amber Rudd disregard it for their own egotistical ends.

Our government has betrayed the British people with millions being spent on supporting Theresa May’s deal, money that could have been utilised to benefits, schools, NHS, the list is infinite.

If you were to ask a computer genius if Universal Credit would work they would tell you it was an impossibility to do what they wanted to do, and especially in that time frame and budget, and their systems certainly aren’t up to the task, and it should be stopped before the entire system collapses.

Then we come to the unlawful part. The Social Security Act 1998 introduced the right of supersession, to correct an imbalance between the powers of the claimant and the control of the state. To put it simply, a supersession, where an existing qualifying benefit was in place shifted the onus on the state to establish that a claimant was no longer entitled to that benefit.

Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit shifted that onus onto the claimant without revoking the earlier law, and around £150 billion has now been swindled out of disabled claimants, as they just terminated their existing awards without a supersession.

Universal Credit has precisely the same problem, it’s incompatible with the earlier law, and in mid-2010 Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May were made aware of this pressing conflict in law, and the fact that all those claimants remained rightfully entitled to their earlier awards.

Their actions? They did their best to conceal the problem.

Including forcing the DWP to unlawfully deny some people who were disabled with any income for 2 years, but Amber Rudd is quite right, the mistakes with Universal Credit have only affected about one or two people, well, one or two million people that is!

The way to fix it was self-evident years ago when it was first rolled out but the cruel Tories chose not to fix it as a way of punishing those needing benefits, that alone tells you all you need to know about Tories, politicians and their voters.

If these politicians tried out Universal Credit for one month, see how long they would last for, but I forgot, they don’t have to because they all live a privileged life, but we all need to know the truth no matter how many smokescreens get thrown in our faces by the Tories and the tabloids.

But hopefully once Universal Credits are completely rolled out, the Tories will no longer be able to get away with this outrageous policy because millions of more people will come forward and demand to know why our government has left them to starve and unable to pay for heating et cetera, and there’s going to be war declared by the people to sort out the rich and the Tories because once you’ve lost everything, what else is there to lose?

We now know that countless people have died due to Universal Credits, but the government has once again breached the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) over refusing to release details of the number of internal investigations into claimants deaths in relation to Universal Credit.

When death is linked to Universal Credit the DWP does an in-house inquiry as to if the DWP procedure was followed and if the actions of the DWP should be changed, but the DWP is refusing to release details as to the number of investigations and redacted versions of those investigations, despite knowing it legally has to as it has previously been forced to do so for other benefits.

Universal Credit has been plagued by problems. Continued setbacks in claims being processed and first payments.

Claimants not being given access to benefit advances and emergency funds.

Claimants who are seriously disabled not being given transfer protection and having their benefits heavily cut.

Claimants being sanctioned for failing to meet conditionality they can’t meet due to health. Either due to being expected to meet conditionality before having a capability assessment, or being assigned to a conditionality group whose conditionality they can’t meet due to the assessment policy being not fit for purpose, or despite being in a reduced or no conditionality group having the wrong conditionality policy implemented on them, or the conditionality and sanction system regulations not being followed including mandating inappropriate things and lack of following correct protection procedure for vulnerable claimants on sanctions, to being sanctioned for things that are not subject to sanction.

People should never have their benefits cut when sanctioned if they’re appealing against the decision, it should only be cut if they lose their appeal, that makes common sense, one would have thought, but clearly not to this government.

Universal Credit was always about serving, yet again, the desires of business, but it was spun as supporting people to get off benefits, but in fact, it traps people into destitution and helplessness, and the Tory voters don’t care, they just lack compassion and are incompetent of looking beyond their personal circumstances.

They vote Conservative to help themselves and aren’t especially compassionate to the plight of the poor, sick and disabled who suffer as a consequence of Tory policy, and if Labour is elected, one of the first things that they should do is to launch an independent public inquiry into these deaths with a view to bringing serious criminal charges against anyone found to be perhaps chargeable of a criminal offence, dereliction of duty leading to death, manslaughter and possibly even murder.

Welcome to Britain the country that refuses people the freedom to die/assisted dying but at the same time culls the old, the sick and the needy, and to think some people actually voted for this.

Corporate_logo_of_JobCentrePlus.svg.png

There have been numerous accounts of the shocking practices in Job Centres whereby benefit claimants are subjected to pretty excessive sanctions for minor and usually illogical reasons, and even though there’s mounting evidence for sanction targets, employment minister Ester McVey continues to dismiss it.

These practices that have been highlighted are especially harsh ending in some claimants committing suicide, but then I guess they’ve saved the government some money, and it’s hard to get at the real facts because any Job Centre staff who leave or are eased out are compelled to sign confidentiality agreements.

There is no duty of care by the DWP and there should be primary law to assign a duty of care to the DWP over all claimants, this should apply to all levels of personnel up to the Secretary of State.

I’m not implying there should be no sanctions, simply that they’re just, proportionate and anticipated to result in a good outcome and to persuade the claimant to make all rational endeavours to obtain a fitting position, and I’m not insinuating that benefit caps should not be applied, these are a matter for parliament, but of course, it’s just possible that harmful laws are the subject of an order in parliament under the adverse regulations procedure, even though Ester McVey’s denial appears to indicate otherwise.

What happens in these situations is that the minister sets the order before parliament, without calling attention to its contents, and it comes into force in 40 days except if MPs strongly move a motion to reject it, but such a challenge is extremely rare because parliamentary scrutiny is virtually always absent.

Of course one has to be able to determine what is meant by a duty of care in this situation, but this could maybe be left to the courts. They could hardly make things any worse than they already are, and it would take the argument out of the hands of lying politicians.

It would not, of course, be easy to get such a law established, but if such a law were argued at all, or even backed by a petition it would be deservedly humiliating to the government.

The DWP and its workers don’t have a duty of care towards claimants, and if a DWP worker denies someone benefits and the person as a foreseeable result dies the DWP and the DWP worker have committed no criminal offence, after all, they were simply following procedures, I’m sure that goes down well with the families of the departed.

The DWP was set up by the Government, therefore, its the Governments duty to make sure it is run in the interest of those who need it and the governments first line of duty is to its people, but then nobody in the government cares, why would they? While Tory’s screw over the less moneyed, but they look after their own, it’s the same storyline every time.

And it’s not about being uncaring, there’s a desire there to hurt people, and all it’s going to take is one single spark and this country will explode because the fools in government believe that the people are so oppressed and vulnerable that nothing will happen because our government are a tyrannical regime.

What have the Tory’s ever done for us? Everything they get involved in they’ve messed up big time, and I can’t think of anything positive in the last 8 years that’s better than it was before. With David Cameron and Theresa May having literally brought this magnificent country to its knees, and now we’re the laughing stock of the world, and hopefully, Theresa May will be out shortly, and she can take that disgusting deluded Amber Rudd with her.

Of course, it wasn’t Theresa May who caused this mayhem, but once she got into power she seemed to believe she was Jesus or something and that she was our saviour and that she could save us from all of our sins, and now she holds this country to ransom, and she baffles me, much like she probably baffles herself, and I guess its time someone reminded her of the distress she’s inflicted on the common people, isn’t it time she simply gave up and let this country move on because she’s holding this country back.

And with the problem that the Tory’s have now created there are no jobs out there, and the ones that are out there, most of them are on zero hour contracts, and if you are fortunate to get a job, you can’t afford to live on the wages, and it’s not about people not getting off their backsides, this country has now become a third world country thanks to the Tory’s and the dumb voters that vote for them and believe in them.

Tory Brexiter Resigns From Government

GarethJohnson.jpg

A senior Brexiter Tory has retired from the Government so he can vote against Theresa May ’s deal. Gareth Johnson was a government whip, whose responsibility was to ensure order amongst backbench MPs.

He was previously an assistant to both David Davis and Dominic Raab, and in his letter to Theresa May, he wrote that over the last few weeks, he has tried to reconcile his duties as a Whip to assist the Government to implement the European Withdrawal Agreement, with his own personal objections to the agreement.

He concluded that he could not in all conscience, support the Government’s position when it was clear the deal would be detrimental to the nation’s interests, and he went on to say the Northern Ireland backstop, intended to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland if the government were unable to reach a trade deal, which gives our country no clear, unilateral path out of the European Union and ensures that we would be fettered in our ability to negotiate trade deals with other nations in the future.

He added that it was, therefore, the time to place his loyalty to his country above the loyalty to the Government and that it was possibly the hardest decision he had ever made but believed it was the right one for both his country and constituents.

Some might say it’s like rats deserting a sinking ship, and so here comes the next rung of Tory resignations, but then isn’t Theresa May’s deal about not leaving the EU?

This is a country in the grip of madmen and there are ominous times ahead of us, but if you were a child that was brought up in the 1950s, educated in the 1960s, brought a house in the 1970s, and brought your children up in the 1980s, then you lived in a caring society, you paid your taxes and was looked after whenever you needed help.

You might not have ever had to fight a war, but you did have proper employment and a pension that enabled you to live with dignity.

But there were some that were brought up during the economic depression, they had to battle in a war and were grievously wounded in that war, but their life only improved following the war with great health service and the welfare state, but now we’re a generation who are at the mercy of a cabinet of landlords, exorbitant rents, repugnant tenancies, shoddy employers and starkly underfunded health care, education and police services.

People are paying through the nose for accommodation, gas and electricity and transport, and are worse off than their parents for the first time in memory while the wealthiest 1 per cent scoop up more and more and offshore it, and not because they need it, but to prevent the rest from becoming better off enough to refuse sickening employment practices that treats them like cattle with call centres, riding a bike in thick traffic with a huge box on their backs, like lab rats in a warehouse feeding internet shoppers.

And then there were those kids that worked in burger bars and such like for a while before college, but the conditions of employment there must have seemed like paradise if you contrast what qualifies for fair and decent employment now.

M.png

But Theresa May believes we can all get together after she’s driven us off the cliff and into the wastelands, and there are foreboding times ahead of us with Britain being plunged into a Mad Max style world.

This is what happens when a host of bureaucrats who’ve carved themselves a nice little corner pandering to empire nostalgics unexpectedly win, and it’s going to be like being strapped to a rollercoaster with a bomb on your lap that could go off at any time.

Brexit was going to be the best thing since powdered milk, but now the milk has gone sour, and the simple fact is Leave promised a propitious exit with trade deals in place, with the EU and others. This is the context in which people voted and which continued to be repeated following the election.

The fact is Theresa May has no stake in the future, she cares nothing for our children and how the United Kingdom will be in twenty years time, and honestly, some people need to be charged with treason for the tremendous suffering they’ve caused.

And Theresa May doesn’t so much have a sense of responsibility as a mistaken self-assurance that she’s the only one who could perhaps square a circle, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and it’s a disgrace that Theresa May’s sense of responsibility can’t be extended in the best interests of the country.

Theresa May is a horrible hybrid of piety and pretension and she will walk the red lines shes created until she’s eventually shunted off, but the actual problems are that we’re ruled by an elite that’s totally detached from everyday people of this country and protected from the consequences of their decisions, but all their assets and offshore or Daddy’s Trust Fund will look after them.

It’s yet another day of national self-harm and if Brexit was a person they’d unquestionably be sanctioned and we need to end this insanity because Theresa May is motivated by Brexiters desperate for their tax dodging to remain out of the public domain.

They aim to enrich themselves more by shredding up employment, environmental and public rights as they hand over vast areas of the NHS to private US medical companies as everything in their world becomes a profit centre, making the rich even more so and the poor so much more so.

They want to take back power but for themselves, not the country. The country already controls itself or it would if the government was competent of doing so, but with their gongs and promises to further support which simply threats the foundation of the United Kingdom if it hinders their fancies.

Yet, they evade truth and reality, and now they’ve mocked the EU, and our government should be slandered and indicted for their own ineptitude and capacity to negotiate and come up with answers to save them from themselves whilst the likes of Boris and the rest still think that dropping out of the EU with a no deal isn’t a problem while the likes of them attempt to show the world how well the United Kingdom could do by itself.

They’ve misled the gullible with their propaganda and distortions, but Theresa May will ultimately get a medal for avoiding Brexit, but clearly, she’s a Remainer because if she truly wanted Brexit this country would have been out by now.

We don’t live in a mass franchise direct democracy, we live in a constitutional pretend sovereignty, and there’s a cosmos of the distinction between going against the wishes of the people after they used the system to give you the power of the country and overriding vote.

The purpose of a vote is that it’s a one-off act of direct democracy. It was a bad idea, a legislative stratagem by David Cameron to quell once and for all the nationalist protesters in his own party. His arrogance was asserted on the basis that every billionaire with influence, every governmental body, every organ of the media consent manufacturing enterprise, every bread and circus personality and every public scholar was in support of the union.

Withdrawal from the prototype world to rule neo-liberal government was seemingly unimaginable. Reality’s surprising sometimes, and it turns out working-class people aren’t too enthusiastic on global neo-liberalism after all.

Perhaps we assumed he would throw his hands in the air and announce that he was joking, but some of us are more gullible and over-trusting than others. Of course, they turned it to their advantage, infinite papers, new posts, completely new departments, continuous meetings, conferences, a cosmos of tasks and chores for the boys later, but then they realised to their absolute astonishment of course that they never had any plan of really doing what the referendum demanded, they simply took bits that served them well, but would they have been better served by simply saying no, to begin with, well, gluttony is a dangerous thing!

This country is in an ungodly mess, and everything will seemingly get worse, and it’s now that we need a competent leader working to bring the country together, looking to build alliances, nurturing collaboration, exploring agreements, but instead we have Theresa May addressing her way or no way, actively fostering partisanship, and disregarding everyone who opposes her.

But ultimately, people will see that Brexit actually is a fantasy, and we should give the people a provincial referendum and genuine power because all this has been is a pretty much godforsaken blood Brexit carnage, and this will go down in history as a gathering of spineless bullies who let this unbelievably despicable gang of lying disloyal Brexit hooligans to destroy the country as they circumnavigate overhead, dropping poop on the pavement, it’s what they do, and they won’t be back to clean it up.

And there was Theresa May strolling along the street, but when she looked up she noticed a Brexiter flying overhead, when quickly the Brexiter releases a faecal matter right at her, but as she stares at it with her mouth open, she says, “Thank goodness I had my mouth open, otherwise it would have hit me right in the face.”

Theresa May has put together a blind Brexit deal that could be transformed into whatever her replacement wants it to be if we’re stupid enough to let her off the sickle, and who could inflict the most awful manner of Brexit on us.

So much for the land of milk and honey because the sunlit uplands are looking unquestionably turbulent, and it’s also a question of whether people are going to be content with simply surviving, or if they’d prefer to have the means to set up to live a little.

But survivable is the kind of word a politician might use to describe a nuclear disaster or alien attack, but we don’t want to hear that in relation to something they’re putting us through for no good reason, but then that’s a consequence of how idiotic this is, that a cabinet minister can seriously suggest the country should consider a route that’s survivable.

We need to end this because at the moment our country is set to be turned into a set for the next Mad Max movie, and the main basis to think Britons will accept aborting Brexit is this, until the election, leaving the EU was essentially a non-issue.

Few people appeared to care whether they were governed by a distant elite in Brussels or ditto in Westminster, and in the decade up to 2015, typically less than 10 per cent of Britons identified the EU as one of the most significant problems facing the country, according to polling by Ipsos Mori.

Even in the 2015 vote, with the Conservatives promising a referendum if they won, only 6 per cent stated the EU was the principal problem. Brexit hardly highlighted in the campaign, but the election set this marginal issue into the fundamental cause of British politics.

Brexiters won by attaching Brexit to two problems that voters did care about, immigration and the National Health Service, but Brexit, if binned, could sink back into marginality. After all, precious few Britons except tax dodgers afraid of the EU’s new anti-tax-avoidance directive have any economic stake in it.

More Leavers now expect Brexit to weaken rather than strengthen the economy, say pollsters YouGov, but clearly, though, once people have decided Leave, they become attached to leaving, if only because they want to be heard.

Remainers can offer a plausible democratic argument for remaining, the vote was advisory, and Theresa May’s government spent two-and-a-half years pursuing Brexit and negotiated a withdrawal treaty with the EU, but if both MPs and a second vote repudiate the deal, and there’s neither a parliamentary nor popular preponderance for no deal, then Brexiting would be undemocratic.

It’s often said that what would help is tackling the inequality that apparently provoked Brexit. That might well alleviate a portion of Leave voters, the group that Ipsos Mori calls “working-class Leavers”, usually northern Labour voters.

But these are precisely the people already abandoning Leave, according to polling they account for much of the four-point average swing to Remain since 2016, but this is what’s so damn discouraging about the whole thing.
Barely anyone, aside from swivel-eyed UKIP voters, gave a damn about the EU before 2015.

E7dALt_-_400x400.jpg

It’s only David Cameron’s fear of them gaining ground that drove him to stupidly gamble on holding the vote, but then this clearly shows where it leads to if you let populists dictate the topics because as soon as you agree to answer their demands, their topics begin to take over the political debate.

But now there are countless people who voted to leave who now want to remain, so people are changing their perceptions, can you remember everyone down the pub pre-2016 chatting about how terrible it was that we make our trade agreements through the EU, no I can’t either, but that just sums it all up, Brexit is built on xenophobia and dishonesty.

One can say, without any doubt, that the United Kingdom could not survive as a trading nation by relying on the WTO Option. It would be an out-and-out disaster, and no responsible government should allow it. The option should be declined.

And don’t forget, when we were being assured that Brexit would not plunge the United Kingdom into some kind of Mad Max dystopia, but now if we end up with a no deal Brexit it could disrupt the UKs insulin supply.

There are more than a million people with diabetes in the United Kingdom that rely on insulin, and it’s absolutely vital that clear systems are in place to ensure that those who rely on insulin and other drugs from overseas continue to have access to them and that there is no disruption in supply either now or in the future.

Top-10-Insulin-Manufacturers.jpg

Insulin isn’t an optional extra for people with diabetes who rely on it, so it’s especially vital that those companies involved in its production and supply, and those involved in ensuring its entry into the United Kingdom, work together to ensure that supplies continue uninterrupted.

There are many people with diabetes reliant on insulin who are getting concerned that they may not have access to supplies required, and concerns have been raised about medical supplies, and the demand for companies, suppliers, the Department of Health, NHS England and those leading the negotiations to operate together to give urgent clarification on what arrangements and safeguards are in place to guarantee continued access to insulin in the future.

Insulin in the United Kingdom comes from three principal pharmaceutical companies, Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. Currently, all analogue and synthetic human insulin is shipped from outside the United Kingdom, and these are the most common forms of insulin used by people with diabetes in the United Kingdom.

Novo Nordisk is the world’s biggest farmer of insulin. They have production sites in the US, Brazil, Denmark, France, China, Russia, Algeria and in Japan. Lilly provides insulin in the US, Puerto Rico, France and Italy, and they have packaging plants for these products in France and China.

Sanofi has production sites in Germany, Russia, India, China and Saudi Arabia. They do manufacture some drugs in the UK, but insulin is not produced in the UK by them.

A fourth provider, Wockhardt, produce animal insulin and have a plant in Wrexham. Very few people use animal insulin in the United Kingdom, and it would not currently be feasible for them to supply the entire UK market.

Theresa May is also a type 1 dependent diabetic, talk about shooting yourself in the foot, but then most of the elite are safely deposited in EU banks and British tax havens, so what’s the worst case scenario, she’ll simply purchase a luxury flat in one of those countries so that she can be closer to the insulin.

The thing is these more affluent Brexiters don’t care as it won’t be them that are affected by all of this, and they’re not the ones on the bread line, and the poorer Brexiters don’t follow politics nearly enough to know this is what lies in store for them, or if they do see the odd story on the news they don’t really believe it.

The question on the ballot paper was do you want the UK to leave the EU, yes or no? The majority voted yes, but around 45 per cent of the population has wanted out for decades, with the twitterings of Boris Johnson, Merkel’s idiotic mass migration, plus the recent wave of people from Eastern Europe into the United Kingdom which has thrust many ambivalent people into the Leave camp, and the whole hysteria about Brexit is a political sideshow.

And it’s astounding how a couple of years from the time in which virtually nobody really understood the EU is now an authority on the matter, and then there are those that have never ever attended a politics class nor read a book, but their opinion is valid because they say so, and when pressed a little you realise that neither side really ever understood even the basics of WTO dictates.

But that’s precisely the point because Brexiters scream out about undemocratic EUSSR and no deal Brexit without even understanding the EU or WTO. It’s a little like not actually knowing how the brain works but even still you choose to carve a piece out of it even though it was working fine.

losthumans1.jpg

However, ironically homo sapiens aren’t very sapient because we’re all living creatures who act first and then justify later on, and the reason for this is because we are slaves to our emotions.

Of course, ignorance is no excuse, and we should not be attempting to justify Brexiters simplicity, but humans are easily manipulated and the politicians knew that, and the old method is to condemn the lowest kind and criticise a group of people who have no voice.

And Theresa May should know that Google means that things don’t stay hidden, and she can’t flip-flop and pray that no one notices her cock-ups. The thing is when government leave without an agreement and create a disaster, they can’t then blame it on the EU anymore because the EU allowed more time, and the government like a pack of inebriated loonies concluded it was a grand idea to create a misemployed situation.

DoNoHarm.jpg

But where is the Hippocratic Oath? – First, do no harm. So, chopping off an arm and a leg is survivable, this is what the government minister is proposing as an alternative, and whilst it’s commendable that numerous MPs seek to justify the logic for the Leave vote in their speeches, and usually end up being accused of condescension and missing the point as they step softly on the shattered glass and crying xenophobia, it would make some people laugh if they just came out in a speech and said that some people decided to Leave because they were stupid, some people decided Leave because they’re arseholes, some people decided Leave because they’re stupid arseholes and that we have a bunch of stupid and arseholish people in the country.

Given that it would be political suicide, but it would put a much-needed grin on many peoples faces, but the majority who decided to leave, either as a protest vote against David Cameron’s austerity programme, or because they were told by David Cameron, Theresa May, and the red bus mob that the consequences of that austerity programme were somehow the fault of the EU, there’s some outstanding blame shifting from the swine botherer there.

When all said and done, it might not be the end of the world to leave the EU but it could be the end of the United Kingdom!

Blinded By Ignorance

Over time during history, whether it be war or simply natural occurrences, we learned about these things through stories that were carried down for the generations, and over time, those stories have become numbers and then those numbers have become numbness.

But it’s essential to nurture compassion to ourselves and to younger generations and it has to be done through stories because when you learn someone else’s story, and when you understand how complicated their stories are, it’s much harder to stereotype the other.

Then you can’t make all-embracing generalisations about women or men, about white’s or blacks because it becomes harder because of those particular stories. Therefore, it’s especially critical to bring not only one story but an enormous multiplicity of stories.

And also as human beings, we’re emotional people, and we need to accept this truth because we connect through those stories.

If we know someone else’s pain or sadness, and what they’ve gone through, there’s a piece of you that should understand it better, but if we just read about categories or numbers then we stop feeling.

And it’s pretty interesting when you look at the documentation of the people who have endured the worst crimes in human history including the Holocaust, genocide and civil wars, nearly all of them are saying almost the same thing.

They say that the antithesis of morality, humanity is not necessarily evil or badness. They’re saying these crimes occurred not necessarily because people were wicked.

They say the reverse of goodness is numbness and is the moment when you stop feeling indifference when we are desensitised, and there comes a threshold when we cease caring.

Whether it’s 5,000 refugees or 500,000 refugees, numbers don’t mean anything after a while if you don’t know their stories, and that threshold is something that we should find extremely dangerous because once we have that kind of desensitised numbness, and once we stop caring for each other then anything can happen from that moment onwards.

So, it’s the responsibility of the storytellers to pierce holes in that wall of numbness and hopefully help people to feel compassion for the others, sadly there’s a developing trend of not only the lack of compassion but open hatred towards people’s suffering, and it’s a sad indication of how low mankind has regressed over the years.

Sadly, there are people who can’t be taught compassion and we should pity them, but it also takes a certain measure of insight to be able to see yourself in someone else’s situation and to assess that situation from a basepoint other than your own life experience.

It also takes a fair bit of understanding to stop and consider someone else’s situation from more than one perspective before judging, and empathy can be shown and it can be acquired at any time in life.

As a child, I grew up in a moderately antiblack family, which as I got older stunned and surprised me because my family were Jewish and knew of all the atrocities that occurred throughout Hitler’s reign. My mother’s people came from Romania and Poland and my father’s people came from Russia and Spain, so I wasn’t sure where the hatred came from.

We’re usually taught prejudice and narrow-mindedness from our progenitors, perhaps not willfully but as children, we’re like pawns and monkey see, monkey do, but this particular day I was out at the shops getting sweets, I must have been roughly 10 at the time and there was this little boy and I remember calling him something to do with his colour, I called him “black” and his immediate response was, “I’m not black, I’m brown.”

I wandered home feeling really guilty because he didn’t look annoyed at what I’d said, but I was annoyed that I’d said it and I swore that I would never be like that to anyone again, and just because my family were prejudiced it didn’t mean that I had to be.

But we fear people that we know nothing about, and if something is different from the norm, then, of course, it’s got to be bad, but my great grandparents came over on what they called the “Onion Boat” although I’ve no idea why it was called that, I guess the same reason that Africans are said to have come over on the “Banana Boat” although I much prefer the Banana’s than the Onions!

But my great-grandparents brought a vast legacy with them and that was the gift to tell stories, accounts of what they went through and what happened to them and why they ended up coming to England, well, not only England, I have family all over the world that got separated, and even though they sometimes still heard from them, they accepted the fact that was how it had to be at the time to survive because these people were and are survivors of whatever atrocities they’ve had to live through.

We whine about people coming over from abroad to England, but we still enjoy the fruits that they bring with them. The corner shops that they work in till the early hours of the morning. We’re happy to drive in a Japanese car, dress in clothes from China and eat food that comes from all corners of the earth, I know the world is round, not flat so has no corners, but that’s for another storyline.

BUT WE’RE NOT HAPPY TO HAVE THEM IN OUR COUNTRY!

That’s because some people and others never learn because they’re deluded by their own stupidity.

Huge Universal Credit Cut

amber-rudd-april18.jpg

A wicked benefit cut hitting 15,000 families a year will be eliminated in a screeching U-turn just three weeks before it was expected to take force, and Tory welfare chief Amber Rudd will announce she is axing an extension of the ‘two-child limit’ that was set to kick in on February 1.

The policy prevents parents from claiming Tax Credits or Universal Credit for more than two children, a reduction of up to £2,780 per child, but currently, it pertains to children born following the cut took force in April 2017.

From February it was due to apply retrospectively, punishing children born before the cut was dreamed up, and the Work and Pensions Secretary will announce that the extension is not valid and will be dismissed, but critics crashed Amber Rudd’s speech as too little too late.

JS60809467.jpg

And Labour shadow work and Pensions Secretary Margaret Greenwood stated this partial U-turn did not go far enough.

Labour has long asked for the Government to drop the two-child limit in its entirety, and Universal Credit just isn’t working, it’s driving countless families into hardship, rent arrears and towards food banks.

The Government must end the roll out quickly before more people are thrust into financial difficulty, and the latest Tory U-turn doesn’t go anywhere near far enough when women are made to declare a third child that’s born of rape.

The two child cap and rape clause is still set to drive hundreds of thousands of children into poverty and must be dismissed, and this shameful UK government policy has been rebuked by the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and an abundance of charities and welfare advice experts.

This is prejudice at its core and punishes women and BAME families hardest, which the DWP are well aware of, and the Work and Pensions Secretary announced the judgment simply as a report by the MPs was due to demand an urgent end to the extension before it caused dangerous consequences.

The policy is wrong, destructive and totally incomprehensible, and the move is set to stop about 15,000 new claimants per year being ambushed into that cut, and it’s perceived to be costing the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) £250 million over the next three years.

The Tory minister will tell charities, work coaches and journalists at a speech in London that these parents made choices about the size of their family when the former policy was the only policy in place.

There is also the religious aspect of it as well, particularly when a woman has been raped and feels that she must abort that pregnancy just because she won’t be given any money for that child, and isn’t it true to say that the benefits system in this country were basically designed to save people from poverty, not lock them into it?

And if we look at the next stage of Universal Credit, it’s especially troubling that the chain of food banks are growing in people needing them, leaving three million people to wait at least five weeks for their first payment, and it’s simply not good enough.

The government should move people onto Universal Credit, rather than leaving people to make their own claim, to ensure there’s no hiatus between the old and the new benefits system.

So now it’s been announced that the government are going to dismiss the extension of a two-child limit on Universal Credit for children born before April 2017, but all those children born before that date will be supported by Universal Credit.

More than 70,000 families were hit by the two-child limit in its first year, and Policy in Practice prophesied the full system would plunge 266,000 additional children into destitution by 2022, but despite stiff advice by charities and Labour, Amber Rudd isn’t scrapping the two-child limit itself, I really do hope she sleeps well at night!

How many DWP ministers have this wicked lot gone through? They know they’re hitting the less well off in our society, and Universal discredit was supposed to be cheaper than the former system, well that’s wrong for a start with millions over budget, with delay after delay while the government tinker with a system that was absolutely fine before as millions perish, poverty rises and there are people out on the streets and are destitute.

There are much better ways of making a saving and that would be by blocking the government’s wretched tax havens whilst they punished the poorest families and then expand the level of Inheritance Tax to £1 million for the rich.

We pay our taxes at the highest rate now and wouldn’t we sooner that it went on people and children to give them support than tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society? After all, the poor and even those whose situation is self-inflicted are far more deserving of our money than those in a society whose wealth is a gained stealth, supported by a Tory government.

And it’s astounding how hate-filled people can be towards the poor but think nothing of a fraudulent system that permits the wealthy to grow even richer by sanctioned tax evasion and treating workers so appallingly bad that they’re at the mercy of the state that then punishes them for the wealthy making them poor.

We all want a fairer society but it shouldn’t be about beating those at the bottom of the ladder.

 

Is This Some Kind Of Joke?

2000px-Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png

I frequently question why so many transients are striving to come across the channel, one of the biggest shipping lanes in the whole of the world. Well, it’s because of the government’s Asylum Support and what you’ll get if you come across the channel as an Asylum Seeker.

Because your government, the British government advertises to these Asylum Seekers what they’ll get. So, let’s outline what they’ll get if they’ll an Asylum Seeker in the United Kingdom.

They’ll get somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both. They can choose whether they want a flat, a house, a hostel or bed and breakfast, how delightful is that, I wonder if we can serve them breakfast in bed as well!

Cash Support, they’ll get £37.75 for every person in the household to support them paying for items like food, clothing and toiletries and this is really from the government website.

Their allowance will be placed onto a debit card each week to make it easy to spend what they want to spend, isn’t that nice, and even if they’ve been refused as an Asylum Seeker and they’re a failed Asylum Seeker in the United Kingdom, they’ll be given somewhere to live and £35.39 per person on a payment card.

This is what the government are giving out, and then the government go on to say, that they may get free National Health Care such as to see a doctor or get hospital treatment, they’ll get free prescriptions for medicine, free eye tests and free glasses.

As a British citizen and someone that’s paid in all their lives, do we get free prescriptions? Do we get given a free place to live or somewhere that gives you bed and breakfast? Do we get given £300 Maternity Payment simply because you’re having a baby? I think not.

These are people who are here often illegally and this is what the government promise them, and is it any surprise that they choose to come here to the United Kingdom, and our government and this country is a soft touch, and it’s time our government started standing up for the British Nationals who live in the United Kingdom and our ex-service personnel who are given nothing like this.

In March 2018, close to 50,000 people were in receipt of these kinds of benefits and the government should stop making our country a laughingstock, and the government should start standing up for their own people.

Asylum support
Contents
Overview
What you’ll get
Eligibility
How to claim
Further information
What you’ll get
You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker.

Housing
You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.

You can’t choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.

Cash support
You’ll get £37.75 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.

Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.

If you’ve been refused asylum
You’ll be given:

somewhere to live
£35.39 per person on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries
You won’t be given:

the payment card if you don’t take the offer of somewhere to live
any money
Extra money for mothers and young children
You’ll get extra money to buy healthy food if you’re pregnant or a mother of a child under 3. The amount you get will depend on your situation.

Your situation Extra payment per week
Pregnant mother £3
Baby under 1-year-old £5
Child aged 1 to 3 £3
Maternity payment
You can apply for a one-off £300 maternity payment if your baby is due in 8 weeks or less, or if your baby is under 6 weeks old.

If you’ve been refused asylum
You can apply for a one-off £250 maternity payment if your baby is due in 8 weeks or less or if your baby is under 6 weeks old.

Applying for the maternity grant
You apply for the maternity grant in the same way whether you’re still an asylum seeker or you’ve been refused asylum.

You’ll need to request form MAT B1 from your doctor to apply for the payment. You can apply for the maternity payment at the same time you apply for asylum support.

If you get pregnant after you’ve applied for asylum support, you can apply to the support team that dealt with your application for asylum support.

Healthcare
You may get free National Health Service (NHS) healthcare, such as to see a doctor or get hospital treatment.

You’ll also get:

free prescriptions for medicine
free dental care for your teeth
free eyesight tests
help paying for glasses
Education
Your children must attend school if they are aged 5 to 17. All state schools are free and your children may be able to get free school meals.

Most of these people turn up in a boat on a beach illegally with no documentation, yet they’re automatically given a free house to live in with no council tax. £37.75 a week for each person in that house, free healthcare, dental care, medicine and glasses.

opengraph-image.jpg

And what’s even more shocking is that on the government website, it states, that if you’ve been refused asylum, the government will still give them somewhere to live and £35.39 per person on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries, so there’s no surprise they travel through other countries to get to the United Kingdom.

Our government should show them the door, and we should take a leaf out of Australia’s book, turn them around and send them back, we just don’t have the room or the means to help them.

Of course we should feel sad for them, we wouldn’t be human if we didn’t, but with our country in the state that it’s in and with our people in the United Kingdom having to struggle every day we must stop immigration into our country and focus on the people that actually live here right now.

We have pensioner’s who have paid in for over 50 years and get nothing, can’t eat or keep warm and if they have to go into a care facility they have to pay for it, and if they require carers they have to pay for it, yet we give Asylum Seekers money for doing nowt when the government could be giving it to people in the United Kingdom who actually need it, and we should be caring for our elderly, not shoving them to one side or hope that they die quickly so we can give the money they were getting to an Asylum Seeker.

Sadly, our government recognise these people for asylum before their own people in the United Kingdom and we will continue to be invaded whilst our unsustainable benefits system is abused, and then you have people who claimed benefit because they’ve had to battle cancer, and then go back to work and then realise that their benefit is now taxable because they returned back to work.

It’s utterly shocking and sickening what’s going on in the United Kingdom with people in care homes that get nothing, pay their taxes for 60 years and then get nothing to support them and end up with whatever savings they have gone.

GettyImages-92875014-1920x1080.jpg

And then we have ex-soldiers sleeping rough on the streets, what we knew of the United Kingdom went a long time ago, and what fine politicians we have, I think not.

What about our homeless, what are they given, particularly when the people from the United Kingdom have paid their taxes all their lives, paid their National Insurance Contributions, no surprise there’s a sense of apprehension that’s being felt throughout the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom is like a game show, touch the coast of England and win a house and free money, and it does make you question why the government are advertising this offer because genuine Asylum Seekers wouldn’t worry about how much they would get or where they would live as long as they had safety from persecution.

But it appears that those in our country who fought and defended our once glorious country from hostiles now let some hostiles into our country, and instead of our government paying for Britain first, they’re funding the entire world.

And don’t forget Personal Independence Payment (PIP) they probably give these people money, awarded on their traumatic experiences and without any medical evidence.

We, the people in the United Kingdom understand that some of these people are desperate, escaping war and destruction in their home countries, and we should feel sad for them, but we simply don’t have the capacity or the means to support them, and it might not look like we don’t have any compassion for them, of course we do, but you can’t get blood out of a stone.

Our government spend all our money to keep transients in the United Kingdom while the UK State Pension is the lowest in the EU, but nothing will change because the ruling classes know that us Brits will stand for anything no matter how unjustly they’re treated.

3070289_wide-2446146da5a541fac14ed96ad0eb1d8a47909f1d.jpg

77a8506517b0bc3c95fb269f3073ee0c.jpg

When immigrants came over to England at the turn of the century there were soup kitchens, there was no Social Security back then, they had to work or perish, and many did, many people also died, largely because of disease. But circumstances have altered and we don’t have as many markets that they can set up a stall with, so the government set them up with a benefit that will accommodate them. Yet our WASPI pensioners work all their life and get robbed and get shafted by the government, it’s outrageous.

And if you were born in the United Kingdom, raised here, worked well into your 70’s to get your own home, pay all your taxes, never claim benefits other than your State Pension, when you’re 91 and can’t look after yourself, you get no help and have to sell your home to pay for your care.

And this is actually beginning to pee people off with families working arduously and having to struggle to pay for a mortgage for 25 years, pay all their taxes all their lives, pay into a pension which means they forgo some niceties and these immigrants come here and get everything given to them for free.

The Home Office ensures Asylum Seekers are not left penniless by giving suitable provision under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (the 1999 Act). Support is normally given in the form of free, furnished accommodation with no utility bills or Council Tax to pay and a weekly cash allowance to meet the Asylum Seeker’s other basic living requirements.

Free access to healthcare and schooling is also provided.

The level of the cash allowance is evaluated each year to ensure that it’s adequate, using an assessment methodology that was developed in 2014 in light of the findings and guidance given by the High Court in the case of R (Refugee Action) v SSHD.

The Court found that the judgment of the Home Secretary to fix the rate of benefit (Asylum Support) given to Asylum Seekers, without any appreciation for inflation for the second year running, was unreasonable.

The single adult rate was only £36 per week. The Court has believed that the S of S failed to make the fair inquiries needed to decide whether the amount payable was adequate to satisfy the basic living requirements of Asylum Seekers, and unfairly left out of account a number of basic necessities, including babies’ nappies, and the demand for some kind of social interaction to allow Asylum Seekers to live a dignified life.

The judgment was been revoked, and the Home Secretary was ordered to review the rate of benefit needed to satisfy basic living needs, and then they offered Asylum Seekers free driving lessons and tests in an attempt to help them find work, which doesn’t make much sense because most Asylum Seekers aren’t permitted to work while they’re application for asylum is being considered, except in certain cases.

This is a joke because most people have paid into this country, but still, have to struggle and go without, and Asylum Seekers are quids in while older people on pensions have bills to pay and can’t afford to heat their homes, but migrants close by can go to the dentist, get hearing aids and glasses.

Maybe all the Homeless People in the United Kingdom should apply for asylum. They’re displaced, they don’t always have money for food and can’t leave the UK so they must meet the guidelines.

This is not fair on our ex-servicemen with PTSD and other mental health problems that are sick and dying on our streets, and who in government makes these judgments? And then we get told that pensioners are putting pressure on the system while all these migrants claim benefits without paying in any contributions at all.

This government is a joke, showering migrants with free housing and free health care whilst those earning a pittance pay for it, whilst disabled people and people with children can’t afford child care and are living on scraps, but we did vote these degenerates in.

But there is only one thing to do, we should quit whining, buy a yellow jacket and protest about this abuse. We’re soaking up the planets waifs and strays with lefty do-gooders facilitating it.

Shameless Tory Chris Grayling

The Tory Transport Secretary has brazenly condemned railway workers for today’s eye-watering increase in train fares, as rail fares increased to 3.2 per cent in what Jeremy Corbyn called a disgrace to passengers, despite punctuality at a 13-year low.

But Chris Grayling condemned rail operators three times in an interview, and he insisted the biggest factor behind the fare increases was pay pressure from the unions, as he told BBC Breakfast that he wished fares didn’t go up as well.

He also said that in reality, we peg fares to the level of inflation, a higher rate of inflation than he wished, but his question to Labour would be how can you take financial contributions from trade unions who have threatened a national strike if we move the rate of inflation on which the whole industry operates?

He continued that they want pay rises that are much higher than Shadow Transport Secretary Andy McDonald was talking about, and that they threaten strike action across the country to get those pay rises.

Shadow Transport Secretary Andy McDonald exploded Mr Grayling’s appalling record on industrial relations, and he questioned why the right-wing Tory wasn’t also attempting to curb pay increases for fat cat bosses at rail firms.

Mr McDonald stated that this was a feeble endeavour to split-shift the blame for Tory fares policies onto the staff who operate the railway, and in the Tory’s eyes, those representing the poor and the workers are the enemy, with those plutocrats who cream off vast taxpayers wealth, and then give a large part of it to the Tory party who are heroes.

But of course, this is Chris Grayling, the man with the Midas touch, and everything he touches turns to trash and declined to let the Mayor take over the declining rail overground services in London. Still, don’t be too harsh on the man, he’s the role model for middle-aged white men of limited intelligence all over the world, he’s also breathing proof that shit floats.

Something else that the failing Mr Grayling didn’t mention, this government are financially bailing out the rail companies whilst this debate goes on, therefore the government is responsible for extending this argument. Perhaps they hope that the strikers will be starved into submission, similar to the miner’s strike, but not quite so deadly.

So much for not taking sides in industrial disputes by the government, and the privatised rail services are given fortunes for failure to deliver, a little like Chris Grayling and the entire Tory government itself, but then that’s exactly like the typical Tories because it’s the private companies that are costing us, not the workers, and we have greedy chiefs.

This is the 21st century, but we’re pretending like it’s the 19th century and there are those that would like to see unions abolished, but without them, we’d be wandering about in rags, just like our ancestors did, and Chris Grayling is simply another example of Theresa May’s poor judgement, and he’s not fit to serve tea on any train.

Of course, it’s never their fault is it? The Tories are masters at redirecting the guilt onto everyone else but them. Remember who it was that privatised the Rail, Water, BT, Buses, Electricity and Gas, well, that worked out well, didn’t it?

I still don’t have any words for the Tory’s like Margaret Thatcher and others still buzzing in my ears, telling us how the competition was going to make everything so much better and affordable, plus the train service was going to be much more efficient when it was privatised.

The fact is that these public sector services were sold off at a fraction of their proper value to private companies who have over the years created a cartel who have systematically increased prices and fleeced customers. The moral of the story is, don’t believe a thing that comes from Tory politicians lips because loose lips sink ships!

Let’s face it, the brazen Tories blame the working classes, the unemployed, the old, the young, the penniless, the disabled and students for being alive. Why don’t the Tories go and do a little stint for free, doing voluntary work, instead of giving themselves a huge salary whilst their minions die on minimum wage?

But it’s the same shit, different Tory!

Messages Say Everything About Brexit Britain

180403000435-jeremy-corbyn-full-169.jpg

Jeremy Corbyn has condemned Tories for plunging” Brexit Britain into chaos, and his red-hot New Year message shows much can change in 12 months, and the Labour leader’s 2018 and 2019 messages are alike in various ways.

In both, he promises to stand up for the majority and strengthen the nation against a vested elite, but there’s one huge distinction, last time he didn’t mention Brexit once, and then it was front and centre of his speech, an echo of how much it’s come to govern politics in the United Kingdom.

And even though there was a more detailed, perhaps more substantial variation to his resonance in his 2018 message, Jeremy Corbyn was still drifting on a better than anticipated performance in the general election.

His message was full of purpose, declaring the establishment had been weakened and that a Labour government was closer than ever before, but with Theresa May attempting to cling on almost until 2022, and surviving a no-confidence vote, those phrases were missing from his address.

Instead, the tone is more one of desperation at the standoff that’s gripped the nation over Brexit in the last 12 months, continuing: “We cannot go on like this.”

Well, of course, we can’t go on like this and it’s about time Jeremy Corbyn stopped sitting on the fence and started thinking in the interest of the country, and if Jeremy is deemed to be our saviour, then we don’t have much of a choice…

However, you can see that all of this has taken its toll on Jeremy Corbyn, he’s looking tired and wilted, or is that his gimmick to look like he’s part of the poorer community, and if he does finally get in, the good suits will go on and eventually he’ll have a shave.

Theresa-May-REUTERS-17.10.18-e1545304915553.jpg

And Theresa May’s claws must be broken and bloodied by now as she still clings on for dear life, as she examines her appearance in the mirror, well, there’s no love lost there, she must still despise herself, and dislike the person that she’s become, and the job that she’s doing.

But of course when she first became prime minister it was all fresh and she felt whole, but now she’s little more than a hollowed out eggshell, virtually unrecognisable to even herself.

brexit.jpg

Brexit has destroyed her from within, she knew it was a lousy mistake, she’s always known it, and everything she touches has now turned to dust around her, she isn’t even making the best of a bad job, she’s doing a bad job badly, but she moves on only because it’s less embarrassing than not carrying on, with stubbornness disguised as a misplaced sense of duty.

And her attitude didn’t change when she wandered into the Commons for prime ministers questions. Theresa May simply glanced at her cabinet, sitting with their heads down on the front bench, trying to dodge catching her eye, not a real friend in sight, simply varying degrees of the enemy.

And there were ministers who had so little respect for her that they even took to having their own private cabinet meetings without her, people who would gladly knife her in a heartbeat if they could only agree on her replacement.

Perhaps we should take four unknowns that have a more fresh viewpoint on things, rather than taking MPs who are so repetitious in their ideas that went out with the ark.

We need new blood, people that live in the 21st century and don’t fall asleep on the benches, and not only that we need to take people from various walks of life, not MPs, but everyday people that live in the real world, and we need to get their opinions, much like a census, every six months to see what’s required and what the government can do about it, not willing to do about it, but what to do about it.

Because at the moment our country is in a poor state and it’s terrifying and tragic that more than two years on we have nothing to show aside from countless indignities to foreign powers that we’ll need in the future, and if we do finally come to some agreement with Brexit, then good luck getting medicine and flights abroad, it’s going to be great, I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

And PMQ is entertainment for the slow of thought, bet they all thought it was a Christmas cracker… At the end of the day it’s just a national humiliation, and whether we carry out Brexit or change our minds, we’ll be a laughing stock across Europe.

The question we should all be asking ourselves is whether the United Kingdom is still governable? We have become a divided country and its irrationalities have triumphed over reason. We now need a capable leader, the best leader possible because at the moment we’re in the hands of a pretentious leader without depth that doesn’t know whether she’s coming or going, and can’t see the wood for the trees.

And Theresa May is at pain to demonstrate how grim things have become, but she’s now made her mark and has turned the United Kingdom into a hellhole, and worse than that she continues to use taxpayers money to work against the taxpayer’s interest.

Austerity is now the thudding drumbeat behind every ministerial failure, and austerity has done more than tear up the public realm, while it’s forced private suffering on millions of families.

The age of austerity has been the era of the food bank, zero-hour contracts, and the privately rented slums. Of course, austerity wasn’t Theresa May’s brainchild, it was Osborne’s, she simply inherited it, but Theresa May clung onto austerity after she made Hammond her new chancellor in July 2016.

The dilemma with capability is that you can only feign it for so long, and then your rep is shot for good. That, in a nutshell, is the Tories, and austerity was a political tactic that David Cameron and Osborne passed off as a long-term economic plan, it was no such thing.

And there have been hundreds of thousands of austerity-related deaths and the UK life expectancy is actually declining for the first time in 50-60 years and Brexit is going to be especially harrowing for millions in the United Kingdom.

Theresa May is currently at the wrong place, the EU won’t move and will adhere to its position and we will end up leaving without a deal, and how much further will the Tory party be willing to concede?

So, where are our world leaders? Theresa May is one but in name only. World leaders should be leading their countries, striving towards improving the economy, working to care for the most vulnerable in society but most of all, working for the many and not just a few.

Jeremy Corbyn followers remind me of the ’70s with the Bay City Rollers and Donny Osmond posters that the youngsters had up on their walls. Jeremy often looks utterly incompetent but has sparked a cult-like loyalty amongst his supporters who are totally oblivious to the fact that he’s probably the worst Labour leader since the war.

But then perhaps he offers an alternative to people who have had enough of the way this country has been heading for the last 30 years and they like having the option. The trouble is there is no opposition in the United Kingdom, and if you watch the Brexit debates all you see is some Labour people pretending to be against Brexit, they’re so transparent.

Brexit is a mess, and it never really had much of a possibility judging the way the process has been relentlessly undermined by influential media groups, and if Brexiters had planned and had a cloudless and practical sense of what leaving would really involve, then it might not have been a nightmare.

And after years of being disgruntled about the EU, you might have thought they would have had some concept of how to progress if they got their wish. I know in the last two years my toes have curled so much and so much has passed you could call them Alladin.

Loads of people have said that a second referendum would be foolish or should be out of the question. To be fair, I can’t see what a difference it would make, the only distinction might be that those who did vote out and now get the machinations of such a vote might now decide to stay in.

Most people rely on the media to give them the news, and that’s why it’s so easy to falsify the news. I’m not saying that everyone is ignorant, but what I am saying is that not everyone is educated enough to appreciate what the MPs are telling them. I’m a Journalist and even I have to look up material from time to time, so what chance have these people got?

So, even though some of these people voted out, did they actually know what voting out meant for them, of course, they didn’t, but over two years down the line, now they know what they voted for and some of them aren’t very happy.

So, hell yeah, I’d go with a second referendum because these people need an informed choice, even if it means getting a translator in to decipher what the hell the government are going on about, and the Tories failed to acknowledge their incompetence a long time ago, and they should be making way for a more competent person, but the people voted them in.

And those that voted them in have now got the leaders they deserve, after all, who else apart from Theresa May would want to be a politician in this current hysterical atmosphere? And leaders from the past, of whatever electorate they were from, people like Churchill, Attlee, Macmillan and Gaitskell didn’t have to battle the everyday missiles launched at them through the press and voters who picked on the latest grouse to yell so blatantly.

It’s all really shocking, and in Spain, the British are so ashamed that no one mentions Brexit in friendly company, and when the Spanish question the British how it’s going, they do it in tones you would reserve for an enquiry about a sick relative.

climatechange.jpg

But once upon a time all that we heard about was Climate Change and now all we hear about is Brexit, so now we’ve renegotiated Climate Change for Brexit, and it’s all pretty funny with this carry-on about who voted “in” and who voted “out”, particularly when once Climate Change was the most important and alarming problem that confronted the planet.

But Brexit will certainly do that until the disaster entrepreneurs get their fangs in and commence fracking, mining and forging their way through every rule in the book, and soon, there won’t be an environment to fret about, but if you truly believe we have more possibility of environmental stability and action on Climate Change outside the EU, well think again.

It now appears that Theresa May’s face looms on every front page of the news which seems to help create an impression of “no alternative” but the UK is screwed with Theresa May who is a trembling mess and would rather hide under the bed, and I can’t see any white knight appearing any time soon, with Jeremy Corbyn being the political equivalent of a chocolate fireguard.

Of course, you can’t navigate upstream, and Jeremy Corbyn isn’t that bad, but I’m sure people want much better, and there are countless people who believe he’s incompetent and less likely to develop a sound political policy than a squirrel.

But he’s done a great job of getting people involved in the party, and he represents a change from the New Labour figures who came before him.

He really appears to care about his beliefs more than power and personal enrichment, and he’s an exceptional campaigner.

And so I’m conflicted over Jeremy Corbyn, and I like that he’s prepared to put forth more socialist policies without atoning for it, and he’s an outstanding backbencher, less so a party leader, and whether you like him or not, it’s not hard to see why people are drawn to him.

One In Four Military Homes Empty

5333.jpg

These houses could be perfectly sound family homes, but no one is living in them. They’re former Ministry of Defence houses, meant for military families, but they’re abandoned and many are slipping into dilapidation.

Some of these houses have been for more than a decade, and local people residing near them in Cambridgeshire are mad about it because they could be made to look very nice and they could be a very nice family home.

It’s a disgrace, but in 1996 the MoD sold off their houses to a private company, but it agreed to rent them back, even when empty, and the MoD is paying rent on them to keep them empty, and it’s utterly insane.

11, 342 military homes currently lie abandoned, costing the taxpayer more than 25 million a year in rent, and this is across the country, Cambridgeshire, West London and Kent, but the military said that they need to keep some houses empty for when armed forces families relocate to different places.

But the Ministry of Defence said that they’re working to bring down the vacancy rate through sub-letting and disposing of property they no longer need, but under the contract, the MoD must restore these homes to hand them back, but in numerous cases it will cost thousands of pounds, if these houses are ever to be lived in again.

What they should be doing with them is giving them to ex-servicemen and women personnel that are living on the streets because wouldn’t it be better to give them to someone who desperately needs them, rather than leaving them empty?

But of course, when the MoD is paying rent but not having to pay for maintenance costs, it’s far more practical to keep them empty, but it’s morally perverse when ex-servicemen have given everything and fight and yet can’t be given a safe haven.

Everything that this government does is about profit, clearly, someone in the MoD got rewarded for making such a poor deal, but ex-servicemen and women should be housed in these empty houses, after all, they all served their country well.

These houses shouldn’t be given to anyone aside from ex-servicemen and women, they’ve served, and the government owe them at least a roof over their heads, it’s as simple as that, and they really don’t need to be homeless when they’re empty houses that the MoD are still paying for out of taxpayers money when the government could be supporting those that need it and are struggling financially after their service has ended.

These houses could help people’s mental health and further create awe-inspiring communities, so they should just give them to the ex-servicemen and women who are living out on the streets, it’s not rocket science, is it?

There appears to be a dimmer switch on where the government and the MoD are concerned. There must be someone somewhere scratching their heads going, “Well, what can we do with these houses?” Aside from making a profit on them, of course.

Well, when the lightbulb has fallen on that someone’s head, perhaps they’ll figure it out and go, “Oh yeah, what a good idea, we can give them to the ex-servicemen and women that are living out on the streets, let’s make their lives a little better.”

“Duh, why didn’t I think of that before?.”

But this is so ludicrous, the MoD know there’s a significant amount of ex-servicemen and women who are displaced, many of whom are sleeping on the streets, and that they should be in these houses, it’s just common sense, but the government don’t make a profit out of common sense, and someone is definitely profiting from this blatant misuse of taxpayers money.

I would guess the person who signed off on this deal got himself a nice little directorship with the company who got the contract, but then they’re always sorting themselves out with projects for the boys, and I can’t understand this waste, and shame on them all whoever is involved in this, making ex-soldiers homeless to live on the streets, how do these people sleep at night because I know it makes my blood boil.

There was a time when the forces respected and looked after their own, you never heard of ex-squaddies living on the streets then. We had military hospitals which took care of the troops and families, but the government in their supreme enlightenment sold off army quarters, closed military hospitals and cut forces to next to nothing.

Sadly, it’s all very disturbing and a sign of the times, we are no longer a caring society, and if the MoD is paying rent on these houses, isn’t it the duty of the landlords to keep them in a livable state? So, where is all the taxpayer’s money going to?

This is dreadful management, they could at least rent them out on a 6 monthly basis to those in need, but then that would require someone pulling their finger out of their arse, but then the MoD are well renowned for its culture of waste.

Perhaps if Theresa May spent as much time and money on all these houses, no one would have to be homeless, of course, she would need to make a better job of it than she has of Brexit, so it’s time for her to pull her finger out, or maybe it’s time she pulled out altogether?

Of course, there are some ex-servicemen that were homeless that are now in charitable accommodation, but it doesn’t seem fair with some being asked to leave military accommodation after they’ve been medically discharged with no help at all.

As as a result some of these men have breakdowns, they lose everything even their marriage, some even attempt to commit suicide, and those that do get help now, well it’s no thanks to the military who do nothing to support them, but how dumb do you have to be to sell something to someone so you can rent it back?

But that’s how the MOD’s proposal to privatise military housing ended in disaster. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) sold all of its military housing in St Eval to a company named Annington Homes, but this was part of a much broader nationwide deal, in which Annington paid the MoD £1.67 billion for 57,400 homes that housed military servicemen and their families.

In one swoop, Annington became the largest residential property owner in England and Wales.

For the MoD, the deal solved a mounting problem, tens of thousands of military houses across the country were falling apart, and the department didn’t have the funds to repair them. By selling the houses, the MoD hoped to make some quick money, while freeing up money for renovation.

Following the sale, the MoD would then rent back the houses at a reduced rate.

The St Eval homes were in a poor state, and like much of the military homes that Annington acquired, these prefab units had been built throughout the housing deficit that followed the second world war and was originally expected to stand for no more than a decade.

They had practically no insulation, and in numerous sectors of the country, these units were afflicted with “concrete cancer”, after damp eroded away their steel structures, and some were in danger of collapsing.

Having sold off some of the prefab houses in St Eval, Annington Homes discovered that if it flattened the rest of the crumbling concrete boxes and rebuilt new houses in their place, the local authority would insist the company supply 40 per cent affordable housing, considerably diminishing its profit margin. So it came up with an inventive solution.

Once the units on the former base were empty, Annington sent in teams of builders who would carry out the same operation, over and over. First, they would knock down the walls, securing them with temporary steel supports known as acrow props.

Next, with the old roof secured in mid-air, the builders remade the walls with bricks. Once they were secure, the builders put the roof back in place and went on to the next house.

The process took years to complete, but by preserving the roofs, Annington dodged the cost of having to provide low-cost housing. So, then you had a 1950’s roof with a brand new house underneath, new kitchens, new floors, new ceilings, it was really clever and an excellent bit of civil engineering.

But this episode in St Eval was not the only element of the 1996 deal in which Annington ran rings around the state, and the full extent of the fallout from the deal, for the MoD, residents and taxpayers is only now being understood.

And when Kevan Jones was minister for veterans under Gordon Brown, he called in representatives from the company, in order to try and make sense of the arrangements. He tried to get them out of it, but it was impossible, and it was an especially poor deal for the taxpayer, and it was incredible that the government endorsed the deal.

The deal endorsed by the MoD had become a millstone. Now, the houses that Annington purchased for £1.67 billion are worth £6.7 billion, and under the terms of the deal, the MoD rents back thousands of houses for members of the armed forces and their families, and approximately two years ago the rental bill for 39,014 houses around the country was £167 million, and of those houses for which the MoD was paying millions in rent, 7,680 were empty.

But there’s worse to come. The original deal gave the MoD a 58 per cent discount on renting the houses for the first 25 years, it further allows a rent review every 25 years. The first rent review will take place in 2021 and there’s nothing to prevent Annington imposing full market value after that period.

If that happens, the MoD’s bill for accommodation for its servicemen and women will skyrocket and Britain’s armed forces will be met with tremendous existential questions.

The UK’s armed forces have always been an unusual employer, they require soldiers to move frequently, usually from one side of the country to the other, and subsidised housing is not only a fundamental part of the “offer” to soldiers, living in close proximity is further crucial for sustaining morale and monitoring soldiers who have recently returned from lengthy tours of duty.

And the possibility of the rent rise is referred to internally as “the cliff edge”, and it will deeply affect every aspect of the army’s operations, but there were numerous privatisations in the 80s and 90s, where national assets were snapped up by the private sector, and the sale of Britain’s military housing was merely one of those deals.

The result is that today, thousands of former army houses are controlled by a company run from one of the smartest streets in London, and owned by a private equity fund based in Guernsey.

In turn, the private equity fund manages billions of pounds for some of the biggest investors in the world, they have made a bundle out of Annington, the taxpayer, in the meantime, has lost billions.

4000.jpg

The man behind the Annington deal was Guy Hands. Today, Guy Hands is one of Britain’s wealthiest men, but back in the mid-1990s, he was merely starting to make a name for himself.

He grew up near Sevenoaks in Kent, establishing himself as a deal-maker from an early age, making money by peddling trinkets, artworks and encyclopaedias, and while other kids played with toy soldiers or learned to play the piano, he spoke to his great-uncle about the stock market and traded cigarette cards, stamps and coins.

Guy Hands arrived at Oxford University to study PPE in 1978 but ended up spending most of his time on business rather than studying. He purchased a derelict house that required complete restoration, he purchased a launderette, which he converted into an art gallery, and he also became close friends with the future foreign secretary, William Hague.

He left Oxford with a third-class degree.

In 1982, he started working as a bond trader at the US bank Goldman Sachs in London and before long he was one of the stars of the trading team, but over time, Guy Hands became frustrated with what he saw as the bank’s conservative approach to investment and started to look for opportunities elsewhere.

In 1994, the London office of the Japanese bank Nomura tempted Guy Hands away, promising him free rein to invest in any asset he wanted.

Guy Hands arrived for his first day at his new job, as head of Nomura’s securitisation and structured finance teams. He wandered in, he was in one of those glass offices everyone could see into, he said he wanted to meet everybody in the team.

The first member of the crew who went in to face Guy Hands was fired on the spot, and it was a cull that continued for months, and by excluding anyone who didn’t come up to his criteria, Guy Hands encircled himself with an equally hard-headed team, he used a blend of authority and intimidation and encouragement.

The new team was called the Principal Finance Group (PFG) because it was investing Nomura’s own money or principal, and Guy Hands, who is dyslexic, misspelt “principal” at first, sparking jokes over how principled PFG would be.

Guy Hands and his new team wasted no time. In their first major deal, they targeted the British Rail trains that were being sold off as part of the privatisation of the railways. Putting its proposal together, PFG used the clinical level of research that would become its trademark.

The trains were divided into three groups, each controlled and managed by a separate rolling stock operating company, and the crucial part of the proposal was to establish how much each of these companies was worth.

According to the financier, over a two-week period, one of Nomura’s researchers rang or visited every single train manufacturer in the world, and he quickly figured out that Angel Trains, one of the three rolling stock operating companies, was severely undervalued.

Its trains were being sold with a calculated use of seven years, when in fact they would almost certainly be used for significantly longer because there was an inadequate manufacturing capacity worldwide to replace the trains, and rather than valuing the deal on a seven-year projection, PFG valued it on a longer lifetime.

PFG could easily outbid rivals, while still being confident that they could make money on the deal, surprise, surprise, they succeeded, and some of those trains are still operating today.

In January 1996, a little more than a year after Guy Hands had arrived at Nomura, PFG paid £696 million for Angel Trains, but it was only after the sale that the key element of the deal became apparent. After purchasing Angel Trains, the Nomura consortium securitised the debt through a bond issue of £690 million.

This meant that inside weeks of purchasing the trains, PFG had sold the rights to the Angel Trains income for £690 million but retained ownership of the asset, and in December 1997, less than two years after they had purchased Angel, Nomura sold it on, and RBS bought the business for £395 million. PFG had made nearly £400 million in less than two years.

The transaction boosted PFG’s confidence, and Hands’ team was hungry and ambitious, and its members knew that their careers depended on tracking down the next deal, with very young people being given a degree of freedom and responsibility which they would never have ordinarily have got, being given the chance to make something out of it and everybody did, everybody worked like crazy.

One of PFG’s biggest assets was the handful of maths postgraduates who created the complex financial models that Nomura required for its private equity deals, and one Saturday afternoon in the office when the “cyber room”, as the mathematicians were known, were complaining that Nomura’s computers were not robust enough for their needs.

From his home in Sevenoaks, Guy Hands ordered his team to fix the problem that day, so they went by taxi to Tottenham Court Road and purchased four of the biggest computers that they could get at the time. They did a deal with the guy from the computer shop, and he threw in four copies of the Age of Empires.

PFG were always on the lookout for any poorly run, undervalued businesses that it could quickly fix up and sell on. Guy Hands once described his ideal target as being “the worst business we can find in the most challenged sector”, and when the MoD announced that it was planning to offload thousands of run-down homes all over England and Wales, it seemed like the perfect opportunity.

So, Guy Hands moved quickly, and after the Angel Trains deal, he could now be confident that if he bought the military housing, he would be able to almost simultaneously borrow hundreds of millions to cover the purchase price.

He could then meet the expenses of borrowing by renting back the housing to the MoD, and according to his team’s predictions, the underlying value of the properties would slowly appreciate, and once the rights to the rental income were sold, the debt would be off Nomura’s balance sheet, and they could move on to the next deal.

But what they did was absolutely standard, it’s what private equity does, but at the time it was seen as groundbreaking.

PFG approached the project as though it was going into battle. They were the barbarians at the gate and individuals were distributed to every different element of the deal and thousands of man-hours were spent assessing the value of the houses.

Debating about buying 57,000 houses in variable conditions, and how they were going to factor in the combination of what was going to happen to the property market in terms of valuations. How they were going to restore them, and how they were going to sell the ones they needed to sell.

They looked at those components, and then broke them down separately, and then worked out what the value of each of those components was, totalled it all up and then stuck their finger in the air and said: “We’ll bid this much.”

NatWest bank, which handled the sale of the housing for the MoD, predicted a total selling price of £1 billion. In an independent valuation, the estate agent Savills had put a price tag of £1.5 billion on the estate. Astonishingly, according to a speech Guy Hands gave at a property conference in London, the MoD had originally estimated the sites were worth only £400 million.

In the first rung of bidding, at the start of 1996, there were approximately 60 prospective buyers. In the second round, the list was shaved down to 19. According to Guy Hands, Warren Buffett and Lehman Brothers were two of Nomura’s chief contenders.

Everyone connected to the deal remembers that Guy Hands played the game theory on the bid all of the time. He was continually on to the vendors, working out where he stood, what they wanted and what he needed to do.

The disparity between PFG and the civil servants who handled the deal couldn’t have been starker, while Guy Hand’s team toiled relentlessly, usually through the night, making elaborate designs on state of the art computers, the Ministry of Defence’s documents on the sale of the military housing exposed a rather different approach.

Internal memos had a chatty tone, and errors were edited by hand, and when the former chief of defence staff Lord Bramall’s name was misspelt, a superfluous letter was carefully crossed out.

“This bidder appears to have taken leave of its senses,” says one letter. “D is the clear winner and A a non-starter.” Notes were added in the margins. “I’m sure that [illegible] will want to discuss with you after his meeting – it’ll probably have to be on the carphone as you go to the constituency,” runs one note from an official to the then defence secretary Michael Portillo.

And when it became clear that ex-soldier and soldier’s groups disliked the prospect of a Japanese bank benefiting from British military homes, Nomura enlisted Sir Thomas Macpherson, a second world war hero with three Military Crosses, as chairman.

The former air vice marshal Alexander Hunter was brought in as deputy chairman, and Nomura further agreed to set up the Annington Trust, a charitable foundation which gave grants to help develop creches and youth clubs for service families.

The trust was given a start-up capital of £430,000 or 0.026 per cent of what Nomura would ultimately pay for the 57,400 MoD properties.

By August 1996, the shortlist was down to four bidders, and according to a letter circulated to senior Ministry of Defence officials setting out these four remaining bids, Nomura was a “clear winner” at that point.

One group, understood to be the Nomura consortium, “in particular mentioned that they are working on how to present their consortium with as British a face as possible”, and in a scribble in the margins to Portillo, one of his aides said, “it all looks pretty clear-cut”.

By September, the deal was completed, and Nomura agreed to pay £1.67 billion for the houses.

According to a spokesperson from Annington, the terms of the contract were established by the MoD and the company had no “ability to influence or negotiate the terms of the agreements”.

The MoD would get some money back on some of the houses sold off over the first 15 years, and the Ministry of Defence viewed the sale a success. In a letter to John Major, who was then prime minister, a senior official noted: “The final negotiations have been intensive, but fairly conducted.” Another minister was reported as “delighted that the sale had been concluded”.

No one at Nomura ever seemed in any doubt that it would win. Nomura’s lawyers had set up the Annington Homes shell company at the close of July 1996, when the MoD was still weighing up how to handle the sale, with Guy Hands becoming a director of the company in August, and Annington Homes completed the acquisition of the homes on 5 November 1996. The barbarians were now inside the walls.

Guy Hands now acknowledged that the early months of 1997 were a mess, and at the time of the Annington deal, the MoD knew that it was going to lessen the number of servicemen and women over the coming decades, and the agreement said that when military accommodation was no longer needed for rental by the armed forces, Annington could do whatever it wanted with the properties.

In the first year after the deal was endorsed, the MoD released 2,000 of the 57,400 houses. Annington refurbished these homes with the intention of selling them on to wealthy clients, but to their dismay, they discovered that they couldn’t shift the houses.

Four Annington Homes chief executives resigned in just over 18 months, and ultimately, James Hopkins, an ex-army man, was brought in as chief executive to save the flailing company, which had amassed enormous debts to purchase the MoD housing in the first place.

James Hopkins came up with a different approach, and rather than wasting more on restoring the homes and attempting to target the luxury market, Annington would concentrate on first-time buyers and public sector workers.

They would offer the homes with 5% of the purchase price paid by the company as a deposit to the mortgage provider. They would make the lack of renovation a selling point, telling purchasers they were buying a blank canvas.

The homes would be sold off at a fixed price, on a first-come, first served basis, and soon people were queueing up to purchase Annington Homes.

1993.jpg

In the summer of 1999, prospective buyers in Huntingdon camped out for 17 days to purchase homes on the former RAF estate. The following April, families camped for over a week to purchase married quarters in South Wigston, on the outskirts of Leicester, and in February 2001, they camped in Devizes in Wiltshire. James Hopkins plan was working well.

But not everyone was delighted by Annington’s new “pile ’em high” sales tactics, and by 2002, CPO Bob Beeching and his wife had been living in their Portsmouth house for 10 years. Making a home for their four children, the duo had painted the house with buttercup-painted walls and new carpets.

But when Annington announced that the house would be sold because the MoD no longer wanted the site, Bob Beeching secured a mortgage and asked if he could buy the house. Annington turned him down. Under the terms of its contract with the MoD, the houses had to be restored to their original state before being sold.

The Beechings were informed that they would have to queue in a field for three weeks and that they would not be able to ensure that they got any house on that particular road and that they would have to restore the house to precisely how it was when they first got it, ripping out all the carpets and painting it all magnolia again.

The service families were a proper community, all the children knew each other and had been friends for years. So, they simply asked Annington if they could purchase the homes that they lived in, rather than take pot luck because it wouldn’t have made any difference to anyone and they would have got precisely the same amount of money.

Annington said no, and it was really frustrating and upsetting for everyone, and Annington stated that it was the MoD that had insisted that everyone should have the opportunity to purchase any house, which meant that everyone had to leave their homes before they were sold.

In its early years, Annington promoted the belief that house sales would be targeted at serving the current members of the armed forces, taking out adverts in forces’ publications, but house prices swiftly climbed out of the range of services salaries.

As Annington’s website pointed out, in clinical language, the sales to armed forces personnel are “reducing steadily due to changes in the accessibility of the United Kingdom residential property market,” and over the past two decades, Annington has sold off around 20,000 houses that the MoD has stopped using, but the company is developing a new approach with Annington moving towards the private rental sector.

Amongst major property developers, the build-to-rent market was expanding quickly, as demand for rental accommodation proceeded to grow, but Annington had an advantage over its opponents in that it didn’t need to build to rent, it already has tens of thousands of houses available.

Senior executives at Annington now believe that it makes more sense to lease out the houses perpetually, rather than sell them, and in 2014, Howe Barracks, on the eastern outskirts of Canterbury, was closed after being home to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders regiment for 10 years.

In 2016, Annington put the 147 houses of what was Howe Barracks up for sale. This time, though, rather than selling the homes as it had before, it was selling only short leases of 25 years on the properties.

ccc-830x321.jpg

Canterbury city council saw the properties on Howe Barracks as a way of overcoming its long waiting list for social housing and put in a bid, but Canterbury underestimated the desperation of London councils, desperate to conquer their own waiting lists by accessing affordable housing outside the city.

A bidding battle followed, managed by Annington. Canterbury was quickly outbid by Redbridge council, in east London, 63 miles away, and there were demonstrations at Howe Barracks when locals realised that the houses would go to Redbridge residents.

One far-right group describing themselves as “angry, white and proud” hung St George flags from the perimeter fence, but it really couldn’t compete with Redbridge’s bid, and families from east London began arriving on Howe Barracks.

It’s fair to say this might not have been what they were hoping for when they applied for social housing. Not only were they 63 miles away from Redbridge, but the Howe Barracks site was also not well suited to the demands of the new arrivals.

Redbridge was moving the largest families on its waiting lists, and there were considerably more children than there were when army families filled the houses, so the local schools were under more pressure, and the playgrounds around the estate were all taken out before the families started moving in because they were considered unnecessary and costly.

Fatuhani Ahmed was one of those who had been moved to Kent from Redbridge and was formerly from Mali had settled in east London, near to his family and friends, now found himself totally secluded on the outskirts of Canterbury.

In London they all looked after each other, if she needed, her sister could look after her son, and her auntie was there too, and she was separated from her partner and now her son only sees his father occasionally.

The Howe Barracks case sums up the short-sightedness of the 1996 deal. In short, state entities used state reserves to bid against each other for blocks of homes that were owned by the state merely a generation ago. This sale was, of course, presided over by Annington, who held all the cards, and as the housing crisis proceeded to worsen, this sort of situation was expected to become more and more familiar.

The MoD now realises that the Annington deal was a catastrophic error because the deal had created extreme problems and the armed forces had failed to realise the long-term outcomes.

These people thought they were smart, but it wasn’t thought through correctly, and the implications of it all are still sinking in. First, there’s the long-term capital loss as the price of property in the UK keeps climbing. Second, the MoD’s rental costs increased from £2,575 per house in 1997 to £4,865 in 2016.

Thirdly, according to the contract, the houses had to be returned in a satisfactory state. This means that when the MoD handed back unused homes to Annington, they had to pay for dilapidations to ensure the homes were in an adequate state for Annington to sell them.

And on at least one occasion, the MoD has even had to purchase land straight back from Annington for more housing. From 2001, the MoD had handed over several parcels of land at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, and Annington obtained planning permission to redevelop the land for private housing before the MoD decided that it wanted to buy some of it back.

In 2014, the MoD paid Annington more than £28 million to buy back a site at Brize Norton that included 194 houses. This means the MoD had to pay nearly £145,000 per house for homes sold off for an aggregate of £28,000 in the initial 1996 agreement.

It isn’t only Guy Hands and PFG that did well out of the deal, his investors, too, made huge earnings, but he made a small miscalculation at the outset. They had done something in 1996 and 1997, which made sense at the time, but in hindsight, it was not the greatest decision.

They had studied Annington’s rental payments at a cost of 7.54 per cent through to 2021. Guy Hands had locked in the mortgage on the Annington homes at a really high rate, he was then stuck making the higher payments for years.

This stabilised the deal, and Guy Hands knew that the rental would cover the debt costs, and took the deal off Nomura’s balance sheet.

This had another outcome, the high borrowing expenses meant that all the hundreds of millions given in rent by the MoD in the last two decades had washed straight offshore, endlessly servicing debt. Annington’s investors were the biggest victors in the deal, having made the largest profits.

And because all the rental income floods offshore, Annington has never made an operating profit in the United Kingdom. Despite getting £168 million in rent from the MoD, Annington didn’t spend a penny of corporation tax.

There is no hint of any wrongdoing by Guy Hands team in the acquisition of the army housing. They were just far more efficient than their adversaries and outdid a government department that wasn’t equipped to keep up with their financial finesse.

And in 1996 Annington won a competitive auction to acquire 57,400 homes from the Ministry of Defence. These houses were leased back to the MoD on a 200-year lease at a massively reduced rate, equivalent to a 58 per cent reduction compared to open market value for the first 25 years.

This reduction had saved the MoD a collective sum of about £3.7 billion in open-market values over the duration of the contract date, but for the MoD, nevertheless, the idiom “for the first 25 years” is a reminder of what may be the most disturbing outcome of the deal.

And if in time, Annington increases the rent on the military house to markets rates, the MoD will find itself in a precarious position. It was a pretty bad judgment call in the first place, with a really short-term gain, and that’s the real problem because there’s a 25-year initial lease period, which is up in 2021, and then the lease will have to be renegotiated, and they’ve got the monopoly.

The army is struggling to find a solution to this emerging housing problem, and in a recent study of 8,322 people by the Army Families Federation (AFF), 30 per cent of respondents stated they would definitely leave the army if access to service family accommodation was decreased, and an additional 46 per cent said that they would consider leaving.

The AFF noted that this accommodation creates a “support network that’s almost impossible to replicate, and that the advantages of this design, such as security, compassion and practical support, are not yet properly understood or quantified.

And if anyone at Annington had a shred of respectability, they would see that this is an abuse, and everytime some headway was made, it was simply putting more money back into Annington’s pocket, the entire thing was a disgrace.

NOMURA_RED_2400px.png

In 2012, Guy Hands moved Annington out of Nomura and into Terra Firma, the private equity vehicle he now manages. Investors in Terra Firma include hedge funds, private family trusts and sovereign wealth funds. Thanks to regular income from the MoD, Annington’s value increases every year.

Yet despite the continuing success of the Annington deal, over the past decade, Guy Hands has made plenty of failures, losing hundreds of millions of pounds from his investments in the music group EMI and the troubled care home group Four Seasons.

But back in St Eval, residents such as Phil Hartley, a 36-year-old taxi driver, continue to be puzzled by the deal, and if the houses had to be sold off by the MoD in the first place, Phil Hartley doesn’t understand why they could not have been sold directly to families.

Cornwall has been suffering a housing disaster for years, with holiday homes pricing out local residents, and purchasing one of the St Eval houses at the cost Annington paid, Phil Hartley says, would have been transformational for his family.

Instead, Annington took its share before selling many of the homes on to buy-to-let investors, who likewise take their slice, but according to a spokesperson for Annington, the company took a commercial decision to completely renovate the homes, in the process creating a good stock of affordably priced housing for sale in the local community, and that the houses were usually marketed to first-time buyers.

Phil Hartley knows he will never be able to afford a house in the area and currently rents one of the houses that was jacked and bricked, and it makes him furious to think that the MoD auctioned off the homes to investors rather than families, and this is utterly ludicrous when there are so many homeless people out there.

Those men and women in the forces have been institutionalised, they only know one way of existing and when they come out, many find it extremely difficult to live in the real world, and many of them are suffering from PTSD with a huge skills gap and difficulties adjusting back into society.

Yes, it was their decision to enter the army and fight for their Queen and country, but those people who believe that it’s their own fault does nothing to sort out the underlying problems and only results in self-righteous smugness.

And if homelessness is endemic amongst ex-military personnel, it’s not their own fault, it’s an obviously systemic mess, and we could say anything we do is our own fault, and some have said that they should have planned for their future, I’m sure they were thinking about that when they were struggling to keep themselves alive and being exposed to repeated emotional trauma, and then the government waves goodbye to them and turfs them out with a salute.

And when they leave the forces, their structure, routine and discipline have been taken away, all the rules have changed and a number of ex-servicemen and women flounder because they’ve become used to military life, the routine, the structure, and that’s where it all falls apart, and the MoD don’t know how to look after the men and women that have served their country.

The real scandal is that deal made in 1996, and whoever thought of it was a fool. They sold off all the houses to Annington Homes, and it was a swift fix for a huge cash injection, and you don’t need a degree in economics to know that doesn’t make any sense financially in the long term, with £25 million of taxpayers money, someone clearly got a nice backhander when signing the contract.

This government runs on a level of ineptitude far greater than we can really comprehend because it’s taxpayers money that the MoD is spending on abandoned homes, and the private company must be laughing all the way to the bank, and this is going on while we have record levels of homelessness, way to go Tory voters and the government.

JS70997310.jpg

But this is what the world is coming to, we have ex-military who are homeless due to PTSD and other mental health infirmities, not to mention those physically scarred by war, and yet we have all these houses that could be refurbished, giving a person an occupation, teaching them new skills to make a home for themselves.

Some of these homes could even be divided into flats, doubling the size, and I’m sure most people would rather their tax money went on housing them than simply wasting it, and the MoD should be pulling their finger out.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started