THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

Councils are shelling out the cash for the Royal Family for the rent of hard up householders who rely on the payments just to keep a roof over their heads. Hard up families are fighting to cope with crippling rises in living expenses, and are already enraged that private landlords rake in thousands of pounds from housing benefits, but many will be even more infuriated to discover Prince Charles and the Queen are also making cash from hard up householders who rely on the payments just to keep a roof over their heads.

The duo receives tens of thousands of pounds a year in housing benefits that are provided by local authorities to landlords.  Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall Estate, which has a collection of holdings over the South West, raked in at least £111,000 from a chain of councils providing cash to homes, and the Crown Estate, which gives the Queen 15% of its earnings, received at least £38,539 in housing benefit payments from just one town hall last year, but the precise figure of such payments received by the Duchy is probable to be higher as a few councils stated they were only capable of providing amounts delivered straight to landlords and not where the money was given first to the householder.

The estate, which is worth £847 million and free from tax, paid Prince Charles £19 million last year whereas the Queen is worth £320 million.

Disclosures came a day after it was disclosed Britain’s wealthiest MP. Tory Richard Benyon, obtained thousands of pounds last year in housing benefits from his householders. That’s in spite of him blasting the something for nothing welfare state.

Matters have come to a delightful ravine when even the nobles are behaving as between men and getting benefits for their householders when they could simply hand the homes over to a housing association.

Campaigners Defend Council Housing joined the increasing stop for a cap on the sum of housing benefit private landlords are permitted, because after all Prince Charles was brought up in the largest council house in Britain, Buckingham Palace.

There should be regulations on the amount of rent that is payable to landlords like him, and if the Duchy of Cornwall paid its fair quota of taxes we could manage the money to construct brand-new high class council housing for the benefit of the country.

The housing benefit bill has expanded hugely, and more than £9 billion will be paid this year to private landlords, and taxpayers’ money is being used to line the pockets of moneyed landlords and property stockholders.

Moneyed landlords presently see the welfare state as a business, and its intention is to put public money into private hands.  The truthfulness is, this is not housing benefit, it is landlords’s benefit.

In 1980, for every £20 that was dispensed on housing people, £16 went on erecting houses, and £4 went on aiding people pay rent. Right now, £19 goes on helping people pay rent and just £1 on fabrication of homes.  So we have gone from subsidising councils to construct houses to subsidise private landlords to expand their property empires.

Campaigners responded with rage after judges supported Iain Duncan Smith in the harsh bedroom tax and benefit capping. It’s a significant setback, as the Court of Appeal denied claims that the welfare reforms were illegal.

Lawyers announced the decision left thousands of victims of the despised system in danger of destitution and removal from their homes, and in an additional setback, it surfaced that the Work and Pensions Secretary Mr Duncan Smith and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling are contemplating charges for anybody disputing social security decisions.

Judge Lord Dyson admitted that the bedroom tax and benefits capping were the most contestable measure, and recorded that Mr Duncan Smith was cognizant the benefit clampdown would generate hardships to a few, perhaps numerous people who are on benefits, but the court still denied allegations that the bedroom tax, which deducts housing benefit off council householders with a spare room, was not illegally discriminating the disabled.

It as well threw out claims that the benefit capping infringes human rights law and common law because of its impact on defenseless families, and Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, announced the court could step in only if the measures were manifestly without feasible grounds, but the test was not satisfied, and both challenges failed, so he decreed in favour of Mr Duncan Smith’s policies.

Lawyers said they are baffled by the outcome and signalled that they would appeal to the Supreme Court.

The proceedings were drawn to court in the interest of two women who were coerced into temporary accommodation after escaping violent marriages, and five disabled victims of the bedroom tax.

Lawyer Rebekah Carrier stated the judges had deserted sufferers of household violence, and Ugo Hayter, who was representing two disabled appellants said, an appeal to the Supreme Court was under consideration, he also stated that he was greatly dissatisfied by the decision and was baffled by the judgments.

Anne McMurdie, who acted for three other disabled people stated, that the government had endeavored to make savings by targeting the most defenseless, and that on the government’s own figures at least 440,000 disabled homes would suffer under the current regulations.

She in addition stated that there was compelling and increasing confirmation of the conflicting appalling repercussions on disabled householders, because they were having to make the terrible choice between paying the rent and purchasing food or heating their houses. Disabled householders are not requesting additional funds, they are asking for housing benefit to be afforded at a level which reaches their requirement, for the equivalent right as another person, and that discretionary payments are not the answer.

This ruling is a setback for campaigners and a significant setback for the four hundred thousand disabled people who are feeling the impact of this policy. For the greater number of disabled people there are no spare bedrooms. These are essential rooms because the greater number of people affected by this policy are disabled.

Disabled people are being forced to move, or attain the additional money they don’t have to pay their rent, but of course the Department of Work and Pensions are gratified that the courts have once again found in their favour and agreed their policies are legitimate.

They also announced, that reconstructing of housing benefit in the social quarter is a need to guarantee the long term sustainability of the benefit, but apparently they have secured discretionary housing assistance, which is accessible for defenseless folk.

The decision came as leaked official papers exposed that the Ministry of Justice was looking to charge people who appealed benefit decisions. The government review stated that the installation of a charge for people making appeals in opposition to such decisions to social security tribunals was under inquiry by officials.

This could see people having to pay as much as £250 if they want to appeal for having their benefits deducted or axed, and when the government’s own figures exhibit a huge 58% of appeals in opposition to the Department for Work and Pensions decision to dock Jobseeker’s Allowance, it’s obvious that the system is falling apart.

Rather than punishing thousands of people by charging them to appeal, ministers need to inquire why they are presiding over a broken system which is making so many poor decisions, which are upturned on appeal, particularly when the government has made it plain that decreasing the deficit is their topmost priority.

Evidently it’s fair that the Ministry of Justice looks at all opportunities to bring down the cost of the services to the taxpayer, and they think that it’s ethical to look upon those who use tribunals should make a bigger donation to their costs, where they can furnish to do so, which is why they introduced charges for employment tribunals last year.

Evidently in January, it was disclosed that the Department for Work and Pensions had misplaced £1.2 billion as a consequence of deception, £1.6 billion because of blunders by benefits claimants and £800 million by officials paying out too much, in spite of the Prime Minister, David Cameron’s promise of an unyielding crackdown on fraud and mistakes at the department.

There are 550,000 retired persons living overseas who have made a payment for an indexed pension, which has been frozen, and they get no increases at any time. These pensioners live in the Commonwealth mainly, but there are roughly 650,000 retired persons living in some other place, like the USA, the Philippines, Macedonia and Israel, and additionally the EU who get the yearly increases in the same way as if they were living in the United Kingdom.

This is not just wrong, but its wrongful discrimination, and the Pensions Minister has even had the impertinence to include the equivalent policy to the new Pensions Bill in clause 20. This will freeze impending pensioners and displays particularly the lewdness of the current government ministers, and especially those who battled for this to be modified in opposition and the situation is the same right now as it was then.

This move to charge for appeals is the ultimate resolution to the legal difficulties. They took money off Citizens Advice so they could not act for people, then stopped legal aid, and presently they propose charging the most poverty stricken and defenseless people in society. The Bishops came out in the face of this unlawful band of racketeers who are destroying the welfare system that has supported the disadvantaged for decades since the last war.

The Churches should now set up a fighting fund to back claimants if they bring in these charges, for this would be a genuine test of Christian benevolence for all who actually believe, and if victorious, would bring additional embarrassment on this assemblage of psychotic criminals.

 

 

Rent arrears with householders from a government pilot scheme that makes payments of housing benefit straight to recipients have seen a huge rise. One area is predicting a £14 million loss if the brand-new scheme is executed for all its householders. Paying housing benefit straight to recipients, rather than their landlords, will shape a key part of the devised new Universal Credit. The government states lessons will be ascertained from the pilot schemes.

It wants to make payment to recipients directly as they believe it will expand their understanding of dependability over their own lives and make them better able to cope should they move into a job. Does the government not believe that people are accountable for their own lives, or do they think that people require direction on all things that they do? What it does give the government is the authority to condition people, wearing away at their self-respect, and disparaging them.

Help is what people require, not punishments that will make people feel like they are no longer worthy, and sanctions that end up labelling claimants as scroungers. People are not cattle that the government think they can brand or classify as something that they’re not, but people will go along with what the government says is going to happen, and they will consent to be treated like they are beasts of burden, like they are animals in a cage.

If we accept, consent to and comply, our independence will disappear, and we will continue to be the beasts of burden. We will become a diminishing race, and we will become the casualties of war because the only thing that the government is occupied in is making an economic gain. We are farming fodder, and we are more beneficial working because if we are working, it gives the government profits. If you find this article offensive, then good, you should because everything the government is doing to us is monstrous, and they are meddling on our freedoms.

The Department for Work and Pensions has run pilot schemes in six areas since last June to see how well householders would cope with having their housing benefit paid straight to them, but we are adults, not children, and we do know how to run our everyday lives, but what the government does not tell you, is how once this scheme is up and running, that people will end up in arrears because Housing Benefit is rewarded in arrears, which denotes that by the time it is paid into your bank account, a person will be roughly 8 weeks in arrears, and if not paid, a person will be liable to removal from their home.

Figures obtained show that arrears among tenants of Wakefield and District Housing in West Yorkshire have expanded from a percentage of 2% to 11% on the pilot schemes. It is stated that they were hopeful that the level of arrears would yield as they made endeavors to assist householders better to manage their finances, but what they actually mean is that they will offer people long term loans with colossal interest rates, which people will not be capable of paying back, which will mean they will become in more debt.

Paying funds straight to claimants will create temptation to use the funds for other things, and people will clock up arrears that they were not in arrears prior to this governments antics, and the problem is there will be mob hysteria, and they will stop paying, they will feel they’ve lost control and end up being evicted.

Some householders on the direct payments scheme have required help to cope with the new scheme, all with mental health difficulties. The truth is that the most defenseless people in society clearly cannot cope with the modification, so they are the ones in jeopardy of not understanding what the money in their bank account is for, and going out and wasting it.

As well, there has been an extensive rise in arrears. All the pilot schemes have seen a rise in the costs of getting the rent from the householders. Some schemes have had to double staffing costs as numerous householders have been reluctant to pay by direct debit. Nearly 90% of householders do not pay by direct debit, and direct debits are not a good way of paying if you are on an extremely low income.

If a direct debit is due and there is no money in the bank, it can cost £30-£40 as a penalty.

Government ministers have talked a lot about the importance of transparency and openness in the way the state operates. So it’s not surprising and disappointing that on an issue that affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Britain they are being so secretive. I am talking about the schemes to drive social housing tenants to pay their own rent, rather than housing benefit going right to the proprietors, a key part of the government’s flagship welfare reformations.

The alterations that are expected to come in next year, with all benefits rolled into one universal credit (UC) paid straight to the recipient. The government wants claimants to take responsibility for their budgetary figures. However, the schemes are proving far from simple to introduce. Since July, the Department of Work and Pensions has been trying out the modifications in six areas. These pilots, portrayed as demonstration projects by the DWP are covered in seclusion.

Participators have had to agree not to disclose any of the outcomes without direct departmental consent. A website which strives to identify possible problems with the reformations, the Housing Benefit Direct Payments Network is solely obtainable to people vetted by Whitehall. Columnists are not welcome.

Nevertheless, some people have accomplished to obtain admittance to the cryptic site, and it appears transparent that the government has gravely miscalculated the hurdle of getting claimants to begin paying their monthly rent. Even people deemed at low risk of failing to pay their rent on time are not managing as anticipated. Numerous social tenants have little or no skill of monthly budgetary figures. They get their benefit in cash each week, and while they are frequently extremely proficient at accomplishing to function on a low income over seven days, they may not have a bank account or access to the Internet.

It was recently explained how a single mum in a social rented neighborhood was asked if she would have a preference to give up the coin in the slot power meter and pay for her power monthly through the housing association. However, she wouldn’t because, when things got extraordinarily tight, she knew she could do one smaller wash a week and cut down on the heating to save the pound coins going into the meter. It was her way of keeping the restriction on her budget.

The department is now committed to reviewing the help accessible to householders, and there have been surprises in the way housing benefit claimants have coped with paying rent themselves, but they must evaluate the assistance evaluation matrix. The important issue for landlords is whether they will be able to consolidate the rent or not.

When the DWP was asked what sort of rent collection figures the pilots had identified, they stated that it was not about arrears but learning lessons. Well, if the rumours are true, the lesson to be learned is that roughly 20-30% of householders may well strive to pay rent on time when Universal Credit comes in, and such a consequence is a huge problem, not just for the housing providers and social landlords, but for the entire welfare reform scheme.

It has nevertheless been realized that a the few housing benefit recipients may at no time be able to manage their financial affairs, and there is a system for some householders to have their housing benefits taken straight from Universal Credit and paid straight to the landlord in the old way. However, the government doesn’t want this to be exceeding 10% of the total. Very much the exception rather than the rule.

There will without doubt be further cost and complexity in such a trial, and the whole welfare reform package deal is constructed upon simplicity and cost saving, and the Department of Work and Pensions is to introduce a scheme called switchback, where householders whose arrears have reached a certain level will have their housing benefit paid straight to the landlord while they receive help for organising their financial affairs, but as soon as the arrears are paid off, they seemingly go back on the Universal Credit project.

The difficulty is that this concept poses as many questions as answers because it is not understood how many weeks of arrears there will be, and what will trigger for switchback. Too few and it will capture a wide number of householders, too many and the debts will be much more laborious to repay. How will their IT system cope with people moving on and off Universal Credit because there are already concerns that the IT database is not going to be able to cope with the complexity that is required?

Will landlords survive if their income stream is disrupted by the welfare changes, as it is already understood some housing providers are already reining back on home improvement and maintenance programmes to create a financial cushion, others may well go under.

Time is required for a decent evaluation of the pilots which the Government is running on direct payments to householders, which should be followed by a phased implementation of direct payments, after which suitable safety net methods need to be put in place for defenseless people that has been developed and examined before being put into practice.

The question is, how are some of Britain’s most impoverished people going to cope with the welfare reform, it’s a significant inquiry, and it’s critical there is a knowledgeable public argumentation about the difficulties and the dangers of the reformation, or is this government setting people up to fail by intention. Once there is an infinite hodgepodge in the scheme, what will the government do, offer vouchers claiming that this is the only approach, and they will get the backing for it because of the job they have done in dividing and ruling people.

Iain Duncan Smith has terminated all benefits for people residing in flooded neighbourhoods because he said they’re all scroungers. Evidently he announced that just because your residence and neighborhood are under water that’s no reason not to be making a contribution to society like millions of hard working tax payers up and down the country. Apparently he also noted that it had come to his attention that those in receipt of benefits and living in the worst hit neighborhoods for flooding are accountable for shockingly colossal proportions of workplace and job centre truancy, and this was unacceptable.

Take for instance a couple who receive working tax credit, but have clearly not put oneself out to attend work for a few days. When the benefits agency personnel called upon their supposed residence, there wasn’t even a Lobelia Avenue, much less a number 17. There was actually a somewhat pleasant lake that was for some logic girdled by layabouts doing nothing but splashing about in their Wellington boots in the middle of the day when they should be out grafting and striving, not malingering.

Iain Duncan Smith went on to give a standing ovation to one aging man who was extensively highlighted in the media as he went about his job in Somerset. Duncan Smith stated that was the sort of drive this nation required, and that the man didn’t sit around complaining and asking for handouts, no, he got out, rolled his sleeves up. When it was pointed out to Duncan Smith that man was in fact Prince Charles, he did not have the respectability to look flustered and went on to insist that he could effortlessly live on £53 a week in a house that was underwater if he had to.

The date is 29th July, 1981, and it’s Prince Charles and Lady Diana’s marriage ceremony, and the Queen has arrived at Saint Paul’s Cathedral and is oscillating her hand to the masses as two women in their middle ages, in their misshapen, loose-fitting dresses, walk with an ungainly gait up to the T.V and wave and present arms back at the Queen, making animated sounds, but incapable to articulate conversation.

It was a moving moment, recalls one of the nurses who cared for them, as she recollects pondering with a collegue how, if the situation had been different, these two women would certainly have been guests at the marriage ceremony.

The two females were Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, nieces of the Queen Mother and first cousins to the Queen, who had been detained since 1941 in the Royal Earlswood Asylum for Mental Defectives, at Redhill in Surrey.

Their last recounted callers were in the 1960s, and even though it was an open secret in the Royal Earlswood, and in the confined locale, that the asylum housed close-knit family members of the Royal Family, to the extended globe their presence had been annihilated.

Burke’s Peerage had pronounced them both to be long departed, on misinformation furnished by the family. In fact, Nerissa didn’t pass away till 1986, aged 66, and Katherine continues to be living, at 85, she is the identical age as the Queen.

Their shocking story came to light soon after Nerissa’s death, when reporters ascertained she was laid to rest in a grave marked simply by a plastic name tag and a serial number.

The ensuing scandal, which provoked a nameless source to produce a gravestone for Nerissa, made little difference to her sister’s life. Katherine received no callers at the asylum, and as her aunt, the Queen Mother, lived on into cossetted old age, Katherine did not own even her own undergarments, at least till her concluding years there, and had a dress from a shared closet.

Presently there is a story that tells of the Queen’s concealed cousins, born in an epoch when children with learning disabilities were a family’s scandalous secret, even though these children were of no difficulty to look after, but they were playful, like wayward children.

There are photos of Katherine Bowes-Lyon that display an unmistakable likeness to the Queen, and the sister’s story was an everyday familiarity at the asylum.  If the Queen or the Queen Mum were ever on T.V, the two women would bow, extremely majestic, exceedingly low.  Without a doubt there was some sort of recollection, and it is so saddening.  Just imagine of the life they might have had, these two pretty sisters who didn’t have any articulation, but they’d point and make sounds.

Today they’d probably be given speech therapy, and they’d correspond much better, and even though it did not seem it back then, they probably understood more than one would like to think.

Nerissa was born in 1919, and Katherine in 1926.   Their father was John Bowes-Lyon, one of the Queen Mother’s older brothers and the son of the Earl of Strathmore.  John died in 1930 and was survived, until 1966, by the girls’ mother, Fenella.

The sisters were unlucky to have been born in a period when mental disability was looked at as an intimidation to aristocracy and associated to lewdness, feckless breeding and frivolous offences, the traits of the underclasses, comparisons approved by well-received believe in the science of eugenics, shortly to be embraced by the Nazis.

So it was thought that if you had an infant with a learning disability, there was something in your family that was dubious and wrong.  For the Bowes-Lyons, this was a stain that could intimidate their social position and contaminate the conjugal chances of their other children.  Nerissa and Katherine’s pretty and healthy sister Anne became the princess of Denmark by her second marriage, by her former marriage, she was the Viscountess Anson and mother of the aristocracy photographer, the deceased Lord Lichfield.

The imposing Royal Earlswood was the countries leading purpose built asylum for people with learning disabilities.  Nerissa and Katherine were 15 and 22 respectively when they were admitted, and Nerissa’s medical records classified her as an idiot, and that she made indecipherable sounds all the time, but was exceedingly loving, and could speak a few babyish words.

Patients solely wore their own clothing if they had visitants, but for Nerissa and Katherine, there were not many if any callers, no one actually came, it was as if they had been neglected, and from the late 1960s, a surge of shame disclosed conditions in asylums that were critically understaffed and congested.  The Royal Earlswood was closed in 1997, because it was stated that inmates were being mistreated.

The imposing edifice has since been transformed into luxury flats, whilst Katherine is supposed to be living in a care home in Surrey.  Her relation with her family continues unaltered.

I have worked with people with learning difficulties, and it makes my skin crawl to believe these two young women were treated like this.  Of course owing to loss of knowledge and awareness, there was a tremendous stain linked with people who had learning difficulties, particularly if from royal blood.  Nevertheless with the economic resources of the Royal family these women could have been provided with for much better.  Thank God times have transformed!

I feel extremely sorry for both these women, deserted the way they were.  I think that at the time, and the situations were different then, but not to even be acknowledged by their family is an offence.  That could be rectified today, as much as conceivable, by social calls from the young nobles, a suitable care home, and first-class medical attention.

The Queen could readily see all of that now. The only thing that would prevent this that the Queen has  an unresponsive emotion.