http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/05/storms-exmouth-coast-video
Author Archives: East Devon Watch
“Relief fund” to benefit Tory shires including Devon and Dorset
“David Cameron has been accused of buying off Tory MPs threatening to block local government cuts, after it emerged that a new £300m relief fund will overwhelmingly help Conservative areas, including his own Oxfordshire council.”
Surrey – £24.1m
Hampshire – £18.7m
Hertfordshire – £15.6m
Essex – £13.9m
West Sussex – £12.4m
Kent – £11.4m
Buckinghamshire – £9.2m
Oxfordshire – £8.9m
Leicestershire – £6.6m
Cambridgeshire – £6.4m
Wiltshire – £6m
Warwickshire – £6m
North Yorkshire – £6m
Cheshire East – £5.9m
Dorset – £5.9m
Richmond upon Thames – £5.8m
Devon – £5.6m
Staffordshire – £5.6m
East Sussex – 5.4
Worcestershire – £5m
Councils not to get any “transition” funding over the two years include: Carlisle, Barnsley, Barrow-in-Furness, Bassetlaw, Birmingham, Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Bolsover, Bolton, Bradford, Burnley, Darlington, Derby, Doncaster, Dudley, Durham, Gateshead, Hackney, Haringey, Hartlepool, Hounslow, Islington, Knowsley, Lambeth, Lancaster, Leeds, Leicester, Lewisham, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Oldham, Preston, Redcar and Cleveland, Rochdale, Rotherham, Salford, Sandwell, South Tyneside, Southwark, St Helens, Stockton-on-Tees, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Wakefield, Walsall, Waltham Forest, Wigan, Wirral and Wolverhampton.
If you have relatives in the Labour-run north of England, you might want to suggest they move in with you! But beware, £5.6 million doesn’t go very far – though further than nothing!
Exmouth seafront: the battle continues – but who gagged whom and why?
“A gag on information regarding the Exmouth seafront development has been lifted.
East Devon District Council can now openly discuss the £18m project after winning a legal battle against two tenants.
Chris and Maureen Wright lost their court case against the district authority, as they fought to renew their expired leases. …”
… “The district authority refers to Exmouth’s under-performance and reliance on Exeter as reasons for carrying on with the project.
They hope it will attract families, couples on nights out, teenagers, water sports enthusiasts, rainy day and winter visitors and entice the ‘holiday park crowd’ into the town.
The redeveloped area would include eight eateries, including cafes, restaurants and bars.
There’s set to be three shops too, selling water sports clothes and equipment.
Councillor Andrew Moulding, deputy leader of the Council and Chairman of Exmouth Regeneration Board, said:
“This is an exciting time for the town and there are some great projects being brought forward by the council.
“We have an excellent track record of delivering good development for Exmouth and we are looking forward to re-energising the waterfront area with first rate leisure facilities for people of all ages to enjoy.”
The government’s new consultation guidelines
In order that no-one gets their hopes up with these new guidelines, Owl publishes the last sentence of this document first. It reads:
“This document does not have legal force and is subject to statutory and other legal requirements.”
Consultation Principles 2016
Consultations should be clear and concise
Use plain English and avoid acronyms. Be clear what questions you are asking and limit the number of questions to those that are necessary. Make them easy to understand and easy to answer. Avoid lengthy documents when possible and consider merging those on related topics.
Consultations should have purpose
Do not consult for the sake of it. Ask departmental lawyers whether you have a legal duty to consult. Take consultation responses into account when taking policy forward. Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage. Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view.
Consultations should be informative
Give enough information to ensure that those consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses. Include validated assessments of the costs and benefits of the options being considered when possible; this might be required where proposals have an impact on business or the voluntary sector.
Consultations are only part of a process of engagement
Consider whether informal iterative consultation is appropriate, using new digital tools and open, collaborative approaches. Consultation is not just about formal documents and responses. It is an on-going process.
Consultations should last for a proportionate amount of time
Judge the length of the consultation on the basis of legal advice and taking into account the nature and impact of the proposal. Consulting for too long will unnecessarily delay policy development. Consulting too quickly will not give enough time for consideration and will reduce the quality of responses.
Consultations should be targeted
Consider the full range of people, business and voluntary bodies affected by the policy, and whether representative groups exist. Consider targeting specific groups if appropriate. Ensure they are aware of the consultation and can access it. Consider how to tailor consultation to the needs and preferences of particular groups, such as older people, younger people or people with disabilities that may not respond to traditional consultation methods.
Consultations should take account of the groups being consulted
Consult stakeholders in a way that suits them. Charities may need more time to respond than businesses, for example. When the consultation spans all or part of a holiday period, consider how this may affect consultation and take appropriate mitigating action.
Consultations should be agreed before publication
Seek collective agreement before publishing a written consultation, particularly when consulting on new policy proposals. Consultations should be published on gov.uk.
Consultation should facilitate scrutiny
Publish any response on the same page on gov.uk as the original consultation, and ensure it is clear when the government has responded to the consultation. Explain the responses that have been received from consultees and how these have informed the policy. State how many responses have been received.
Government responses to consultations should be published in a timely fashion
Publish responses within 12 weeks of the consultation or provide an explanation why this is not possible. Where consultation concerns a statutory instrument publish responses before or at the same time as the instrument is laid, except in exceptional circumstances. Allow appropriate time between closing the consultation and implementing policy or legislation.
Consultation exercises should not generally be launched during local or national election periods.
If exceptional circumstances make a consultation absolutely essential (for example, for safeguarding public health), departments should seek advice from the Propriety and Ethics team in the Cabinet Office.
This document does not have legal force and is subject to statutory and other legal requirements.
The “Budleigh Boys” and the history of AONB incursion – part 2
Following our earlier on how the “Budleigh Boys” councillors view their local AONB:
Owl has been surprised to receive quite a bit of correspondence on the subject and particularly about the AONB planning application that they so enthusiastically supported – at the caravan and camping site known as Pooh Cottage.
The site started life as a small cottage (2 bedrooms) on what was then called the Shortwood estate – in a very quiet and secluded rural setting which was purchased by a Ms Carter.
“Pooh Cottage”, as the house and site is now known, then began an expansion, some of it (see below) without benefit of any planning permission. It now comprises a large house, another building now split into two residential properties, a building erected as a horse’s stable and now a large bungalow, and three permanent “mobile homes”. A history of over 40 planning applications, retrospective application and enforcement orders, illustrate how the expansion continues.
The caravan site sprang up in the early 1990s. It started as a certificated site, with permission for 5 caravans on a stipulated number of days, but rapidly grew and grew in scope until in 2006, Ms Carter applied for a “Certificate of Lawfulness” for 47 caravans between 1st April until 31st October of each year, on the grounds that she had done so for 10 years, completely unhindered by any action from EDDC. This certificate was granted by EDDC – for a site considered by many to be entirely unsuitable and unsustainable to a large commercial enterprise.
Neighbours of the site, very concerned about how the site had grown and continued to grow, went to the Local Government Ombudsman, who found in their favour, and awarded them a large cash sum (from the pockets of the taxpayers of East Devon, of course) as “compensation” – though this was, of course, no help after the event. Unfortunately, the certificate cannot be rescinded without an Act of Parliament, which is obviously unfeasible.
The Ombudsman judged that EDDC had erroneously granted the Certificate of Lawfulness, and strongly censured their actions throughout the whole way in which they had handled the growth and expansion of Pooh Cottage “Holiday Park” and recommended that a very tight rein be kept on any planning excursions from Ms Carter in the future. This has not apparently happened, and the expansion continues, with repeated battles every season to limit the use of the site to the permitted terms. Councillors have supported expansion even after the Ombudsman’s remarks and when their officers have recommended refusal (see link above)
Throughout all these battles, the former “East Devon Business Forum” supported the owners of Pooh Cottage at every turn, saying that it brought jobs and prosperity to the area (though there seems to be little evidence of these jobs far).
A campaign was instituted some years ago by residents in the area to oust their then councillors, who both supported the business interests of the owners of the site throughout. Former councillors Florey and Franklin are no longer representives of the people of Budleigh Salterton.
However, the current councillors have continued to enthusiastically support expansion of the site with the exact same reasons former councillors used and which the Local Government Ombudsman criticised.
David Cameron’s mum fights Tory austerity cuts
“The Prime Minister’s mum Mary has signed a petition aimed at stopping Tory cuts.
Jill Huish, who runs the campaign that Mary backed, said: “It shows how deep austerity is cutting our most vulnerable when even David Cameron ’s mum has had enough.”
Mary, 81, signed a petition railing against Conservative cuts to “essential services”.
She put her name to the battle to save dozens of children’s centres that a Tory-run council is poised to close to save £8million.
Local authorities in England have had their government funding slashed by 40% since Mr Cameron entered Downing Street in 2010.””
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-mum-joins-fight-7334739
An unfortunate lapse of memory? And yet another instance of Councillors Hughes and Troman not following through
One reason that the Local Plan Inspector kept the Sidford Business park in the Local Plan was that he deemed the Alexandria Industrial Estate “not suitable”.
Although we are told that he did visit the site, he plainly put much emphasis on the very out-of-date evidence about it in the Employment Land Review 2014 sent by EDDC as evidence.
But at a full council meeting on 25 July 2012 it was “resolved” to undertake an exploration into the capacity for the expansion of the Alexandria Industrial Estate.
Our correspondent asked the council where the outcome of this exploration ordered by full council could be found:
Today, our correspondent received a reply:
““With regard to the exploration into the capacity for the expansion of the Alexandria Industrial Estate, I have found the recommendation in the Council Committee minutes dated 25th July 2012. Having spoken to the Planning Team there appears to be no information held on the outcome of this proposal.”
Well there’s a surprise! A full council meeting (not a Council Committee meeting as cited in the reply!) resolves to investigate better usage of Alexandria industrial Estate …. and nothing happens!
Here is the minute and resolution from that meeting:
“Minutes of Cabinet and Committees Arising from consideration of the minutes:-
Planning Policy – New East Devon Local Plan 2006 – 2026
Special Meeting of Development Management Committee (Minute 11) Proposed amendments (continued)
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Graham Troman who emphasised the need for an audit trail of decision making in respect of the Plan. He was concerned about some misinterpretation of what the towns had said in consultation.
Sidmouth Ward Members, Councillors Christine Drew and Stuart Hughes would welcome an opportunity to raise their concerns about the proposed allocation of employment land at Sidford and its potential impact.
Discussion included concern over the Local Plan process. Members were again reminded that there would be a further period of 6 weeks for consultation.
The proposal to hold an Extraordinary Council meeting to discuss the full Local Plan without delaying the Local Plan process was put to the vote and lost.
Councillor Hughes proposed that the capacity for expansion of the Alexandria Industrial Estate should be explored.
This amendment was seconded by Councillor Wale. The proposal was put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED that the capacity for expansion of the Alexandria Industrial Estate be explored.”
Exmouth: Queen’s Drive closed due to strong winds – and sand!
Can you imagine those coming second-home/holiday let potential owners getting hot-under-the-collar at not being able to reach their new, expensive homes – or being trapped in them.
Some great photos here:
and video here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/05/storms-exmouth-coast-video
Fettering of Information Act: why Labour ex-Cabinet Minister is Chairman
“Jack Straw’s ministries amongworst on freedom of information requests
Straw now sits on panel set up to review FoI act and expected to propose making some information harder to access
The former cabinet minister Jack Straw, who has been tasked with considering how to tighten up the Freedom of Information Act, led two of the Whitehall departments most likely to reject public requests for information.
Straw’s ministries never ranked higher than 15 out of 21 government departments in terms of releasing information in full, according to a Guardian analysis of government-wide figures.
In 2010, his final year as lord chancellor, the Ministry of Justice was the worst ranked government department, providing none of the information requested more often than any other ministry.
In the six years he was a secretary of state under the act, his departments ranked 16th, 17th, 15th, 20th, 21st and 21st out of between 21 and 23 ministries. Straw was foreign secretary until 2006, and then justice secretary until 2010.
… Straw now sits on an independent five-person panel set up to review FoI legislation. The panel is expected later this month to propose making some information harder to access for members of the public, journalists and campaigners. …
… Last month it emerged that before he stood down as an MP last May, Straw had given a corporation for which he was working as a £60,000-a-year paid adviser guidance on how to block the release of documents from the Foreign Office by citing an FoI exemption that allows information affecting commercial interests to be withheld.”
Just the man for the job!
When and how does £265,000 of savings become £400,000 of savings?
What does one make of this, on the agenda of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny meeting to be held on Tuesday 9 February 2016 at 6 pm from the agenda papers and talking of the potential savings to be made on a new refuse and recycling contract:
“The recommended Lot being proposed in the report does give a saving to the Council in the order of £0.265m along with providing an enhanced recycling service. The draft budget however assumed a saving of £0.400m in line with our Transformation Strategy thereby giving us a shortfall of £0.135m in our budget proposals should members wish to adopt the recommended option. This issue is dealt with the Revenue and Capital Estimates Report 2016/17 contained on this agenda on the assumption that members adopt
the recommendation”
Click to access 090216-joint-overview-and-scrutiny-agenda-combined-public.pdf
It seems to say: This contract will save us £265,000 but the draft budget assumed that it would save us £400,000 and we have found a way to make it come to £400,000 …. by some sort of wizardly accounting?
How many committee members will take the time and trouble to look at the Revenue and Capital Estimates Report 2016/17 to see exactly how this wonderful accounting is dealt with and reassure themselves that 265 really does mean 400?
Sidmouth (non?) Conservative Club, a tax protest and Swire’s take on it all
The photograph below is taken at Independent Councillor Claire Wright’s demonstration on fat cat tax avoidance outside (on the public pavement) the Sidmouth Conservative Club, which until recently had a rather scruffy and spider-infested pic of Hugo Swire on its notice board.
Apparently, a person from the club insisted that it is “non political” though it appears in a list of Conservative member clubs
http://www.toryclubs.co.uk/page/website-linkup
and was keen to persuade the protesters to move away from the vicinity of the club when they protested last week.
For Mr Swire’s views on tax evasion and avoidance (which he appears to confuse) see here:
http://www.hugoswire.org.uk/news/blog-tax-evasion-and-avoidance
where he states:
“” … Even though companies may avoid paying tax on their profits, they do contribute to the public purse in other ways. Their employees will pay Income Tax and National Insurance, as well as any additional taxes they may occur. In the UK – when you add up VAT, business rates, national insurance contributions, and so on – about 30% of tax revenues come from businesses, of which only eight per cent comes from corporation tax. …”
So, that’s ok then. As long as WE pay our 20-40 % taxes and pay 20% VAT when we spend what’s left, the mega-companies that employ us (which should pay 20% corporation tax) can happily 3-4% max! If we tried that we would be given hefty fines or prison sentences!
Reminds Owl of tales of the old British Empire where, in Africa, people got paid by mine companies – and could only spend the money in mine company owned shops!
Beach hut site increased rents = £521,631 per acre per year!
On a Facebook site, a Seaton beach hut renter has plotted a graph of price increases against cost-of-living increases. Here is a comment on that post:
“£574.80 per year for 48 sq ft [of beach pebbles] = £521,631 per year per acre. To put this in context, the price for an acre of prime agricultural land is c. £5,000-£6,000, so the price for wasteland would be substantially lower and for pebbled beach lower still. So for what EDDC are charging in rent for wasteland, you can buy 100 times that area and keep it forever.
I would presume that EDDC’s justification is “market rates”, and so long as people keep paying these exorbitant amounts, then they can quite reasonably claim that these are “market rates”.
The real answer is that the council leadership, prompted by their pals in government, see themselves more as a capitalistic organisation that needs to be market driven and take local residents for every penny they can rather than a body elected by local residents to serve local residents to provide public services for their benefit.
The only ways I can see to get EDDC to change will be to:
a) Vote with your feet on Beach Huts – stop renting and show the council that their rates are much higher than the market will support; and
b) Use your vote at the next county and district local government elections to elect councillors who see their role as benefiting local residents rather than supporting central government policy.”
The hunt for Queen’s Drive Exmouth!
Twitter awash with reports that Queen’s Drive, Exmouth has disappeared under a mass of beach sand …. it has even made The Guardian
#stormimogen
If you develop there, remember this and that global warming will only make it worse ….
Head of two adult care boards in Devon quits over “relentless cuts”
“The head of two adult safeguarding organisations has resigned, saying government cuts could lead to “a serious incident or death”.
The BBC has learnt Bob Spencer had “serious concerns” about the ability of both Torbay and Devon Safeguarding Adults Boards to deliver services in the face of “relentless budget cuts”.
He became chairman of the Torbay board in 2009, and the Devon board in 2013.
The government said it had provided councils with £3.5bn for social care.
In his resignation letter, Mr Spencer said he had seen how vulnerable people were “hardest hit” by the cuts to these agencies, and “with another four years of cuts, Devon and Torbay will struggle to provide a safe service”.
“We will, I fear, be facing a situation when services are reduced so significantly that those most vulnerable are at risk of abuse on many levels.
“Ultimately neglect, poor care and criminal actions may lead to a serious incident or death,” he said.
Safeguarding boards are statutory organisations which bring together councils, the NHS, and police, to oversee protection for vulnerable people, such as those who have learning disabilities or the elderly.
Mr Spencer said his decision to run as an independent candidate in the next election for the crime commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly acknowledged the “tireless” work done by staff and volunteers in the partnership safeguarding agencies.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said councils in England would have “almost £200bn to spend on local services” during this parliament, which it said was a reduction of “just 1.7%” annually in real terms.
A spokesperson for the department said: “By the end of this parliament local councils will be financed from local revenue, such as council tax and business rates rather than central government grant, which is something local government has spent decades campaigning for.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-35513316
Interesting to have an independent stand for police commissioner and one who has been at the sharp end of austerity cuts.
One to watch.
Heart-rending pictures and experiences of flooding in Feniton – again
And tonight it is raining heavily again so the village is anticipating worse conditions. Will Wainhomes do the decent thing and sort this problem out. Don’t hold your breath.
…”Water poured off the field beside Feniton’s latest development where swales (ditches) take surface water around the site, round the attenuation tank and then direct it straight through the Parish Council-owned play area. The swings had already been removed from a previous bout of heavy rain, when the ground under the swings was silted up with slimy sand from the surface water run-off.
The flood risk assessment submitted by Wainhomes and approved by the Environment Agency and Devon County Council seems to be woefully inadequate for dealing with surface water run-off from this high point of the village. Both the plan and the scheme put in place by Wainhomes need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that what was planned and approved has actually been put in place.
And so it continued … sandy water poured under the allotment gates down Coventry Close and several of us spent some time trying to direct the flow to different drain holes so that they were not overwhelmed.
It’s boring, tedious, cold, dispiriting work … And we seem to spend far too much of our time worrying about what the weather will inflict on us next.
It’s probably a good time to thank the many flood wardens and other residents who give so selflessly of their time.
A particular thank you has to go to the kind resident of Exeter Close who came out with tea and biscuits for Danny and Jayne who stayed on Station Road until it was safe to re-open the road. …”
https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/it-never-rains-but-it-pours-yet-again/
What happens when you privatise care home inspections
The body responsible for ensuring care homes are run to an adequate standard is so short of qualified consultants to help with inspections that it has had to ask the charities it replaced with a private company to help out.
Remploy, the former government agency that has turned into a for profit firm, won a £7m contract to replace the charities in London, the North and South of England, starting a week ago. However, hundreds of “Experts by Experience” have refused to reapply for their jobs after Remploy offered half their previous £17-per-hour pay.
As a result, the Care Quality Commission has had to ask the charities to keep providing the consultants for another two weeks, despite choosing Remploy to take over the inspections programme.
The CQC offered to provide a “buffer” payment to existing experts so they would be paid £15 per hour for the next six months, after which their salary could drop to just £8.40 per hour (£9.25 in London) – which is what Remploy is paying new recruits.
… Every month more than 500 experts, with personal experience of care services, are sent on CQC inspections across adult social care, primary care and hospitals. They play a vital role in the inspection process. However, hundreds of experts have quit their roles – angered by a combination of the pay offer and the fact that a private firm, majority owned by US outsourcing giant Maximus, is profiting from the deal. …”
The “Budleigh Boys” and their take on AONB changes: fine if it “benefits the lical economy”
The councillors referred to themselves as “the Budleigh Boys” after they were re-elected after the last local elections. This was their take on an AONB development in 2012 which gives a good idea of their priorities, which over a period of three years appear to have totally changed.
Application 11/1531 (F Carter) refused for winter storage & refused by Inspectorate 15.05 2012
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 GRANT OF CONDITIONAL PLANNING PERMISSION Applicant: Pooh Cottage Holiday Park Application No: 15/2136/FUL Address: Bear Lane Budleigh Salterton Date of Registration: 14 September 2015 Agent: ARA Architecture Date of Decision: 28 January 2016 Address: 39 Rolle Street Exmouth EX8 2SN Proposal: Proposed storage area for 47no touring caravans. Location: Pooh Cottage Holiday Site Bear Lane Budleigh Salterton
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application is before Committee having been referred from Chairman’s Delegation meeting. The application seeks permission for the use of an agricultural field for the winter storage of caravans. The use would be associated with an adjacent holiday touring caravan site which is in operation for the main holiday season only. While the applicant has sought to demonstrate the benefits of the scheme through additional income for the existing site, and continuity of service for clients (those staying on the site during the summer would be able to store their caravan on the adjacent field), the site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In such an environment, which is given the highest level of landscape protection, development should be in the National Interest or have sufficient justification while still protecting and preserving the environment. While economic benefits can help to justify a scheme, they are not considered in this instance to outweigh the concerns regarding the visual impact from the proposal and highway safety concerns from additional vehicle and caravan movements on a single-width carriageway
Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT PERMISSION BE REFUSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS
1. The proposed development would be likely to result in an increase in the number of vehicle movements, particularly towing vehicles, using Bear Lane, a narrow road with limited passing facilities and no footways which will further prejudice highway safety and lead to additional interference and conflict with other highway users along the length of Bear Lane and its junction with B3178, including users of the national Cycle Network, contrary to Policy TO6 of the Devon County Structure Plan and Policy TA7 of the adopted East Devon District Local Plan Officer authorised to sign on behalf of the County Council 20 October 2015 DCC Flood Risk SuDS Consultation Thank you for referring the above application which was received on 23/09/2015
Budleigh – Cllr A Dent When a similar proposal came before us three years ago I supported the application on the following grounds: o The additional income from the winter storing of caravans would be of considerable benefit to the Pooh Cottage business. In addition there would be a some benefit to the local economy.
By not moving caravans seasonally in and out of the site, there would be less traffic movements in Bear Lane. The Inspector refused the application in support of the Highways comments as well as the detrimental effect there would be on the AONB. This application addresses the harm to the AONB by moving the proposed storage site further down the slope. The advantage to both traffic movements in Bear Lane as well as the benefit to the local economy remain.
On balance I feel the benefits outweigh any potential harm and I support this application. In the event that officers disagree with my position then I would like this application to be taken to committee.
Budleigh – Cllr S Hall I wish to express my support for this application. I believe that this revised location is much more acceptable in terms of visibility and impact on nearby residents. Traffic movements should be significantly reduced. Please advise of any future developments on this
Budleigh – Cllr T Wright I support this application. I was strongly opposed to the previous application as there would have been significant visual impact as the previous site was higher up the land. The new site is lower down the hillside and not so obtrusive. The reduction in the resulting movement of caravans is to be welcomed on a number of points, reduced traffic congestion, improved road safety and a lessening of carbon emissions. The business is a valuable contributor to the Budleigh and wider East Devon economy.
HMRC avoids giving real numbers when talking abouttax avoidance!
” … In [the HMRC] annual report, we see a “cash collected” figure, but this includes cash not yet received, not all of which will be collected. Confused? You’re meant to be.
We all know “lies, damned lies and statistics” We should all celebrate, as most of us in this country have the above-average number of legs: some folk have one leg, but nobody has three, so we bipeds are “above average” – see?
HMRC doesn’t report on the scale of aggressive tax avoidance. They don’t want stats to show how shoddy they are. But it does trumpet the numbers of prosecutions for evasion. HMRC chose a random figure of 1,000 a year. And then beat that number of prosecutions. Yippee. But we’re dealing with a taxpaying population of about 30 million. HMRC puts the figure of the “shadow economy” at 10% of our total tax received. So, aiming to prosecute 1,000 people really is less than useless… …”
The full report will be on”Dispatches”, Challel 4, 8pm tomorrow
EDDC AONB RIP
So, that’s the AONB designation shot then … watch the developers go with “windfalls” there – orchards perhaps …
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-observer1702/20160207/281732678525904/TextView
MPs investigated by police for criminal offences but not named and allowed to stand in last general election
In any other area of life these people would have been suspended whilst investigations were completed.
“The expenses watchdog has been accused of eroding public trust after it emerged that five MPs have been secretly referred to the police for investigation over the past year.
Ipsa, the expenses watchdog, has refused to name any of the MPs despite admitting that there is “reason to suspect a criminal offence has been committed”.
The watchdog has only named two of the 55 MPs it has investigated since April 2014 after concluding the cases were either unfounded or reaching secret agreements.
The secrecy of arrangements means that several of the MPs were re-elected in May despite the investigations. …”
