Advertising watchdog launches investigation into Universal Credit adverts


The DWP are continually stating that these new benefits are better than the old ones, but where is the proof.

There are many stories where the new benefits appear not to be good, be they ESA (Employment & Support Allowance), PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and now UC (Universal Credit), ranging from the assessment processes and then the beginning of payments.

We are told that the majority of claimants are OK with the new benefits, but how is this known for are they going to come forward and state this, but maybe when things go wrong the claimants may object.

However, do all the claimants advise when they are not happy, but just put up with it.
In my experience in dealing with Local Authorities many who are not happy do not complain for numerous reasons, they cannot be bothered, do not know how to, think it will be a waste of time, perhaps do not have the time, some will feel they will be treated worse if they complain and many other reasons.

So just looking at the percentage who come forward to state they are not happy is not an accurate record. But unfortunately, it is the only record or the only record that is recognised.

Now do we have to assume Governments and Government departments are always telling the truth, when it has been proved that there are instances when they are not.

Quite a few of the population are fearful of Authorities and will therefore never complain.
What we need to do is work from the premise that things will go wrong and not that they will not.
People are treated like ‘cattle’, where what is done for one will be done for everyone, but people are different and maybe different from one day to another and in many instances different through the day and night.

Systems need to be based on ‘person-centred’ principles and not on ‘institutional’ principles, but it is easier for systems to be based on the latter, rather than the former and maybe more cost effective.

But to make systems equal for all the person-centred principle needs to be costed into the process, that is, if these authorities even understand, or are willing to understand the principle of person-centred.

Systems should not be there for the sole basis of the respective organisations but for all, now that will be true ‘equality’ and not just some play on words.
People have ‘rights, ‘human rights’ and should be respected.

How four seriously ill people battled to get their PIP awards


The DWP is practising the ‘3 Wise Monkeys’ here is what ‘A DWP spokesperson said: ” We are committed to ensuring that people with a health condition or disability get the support they’re entitled to.

“Since PIP was introduced there have been 3.7 million decisions made and of these only 5% have been overturned at appeal. “In most successful appeals, decisions are overturned because people have submitted more oral or written evidence.” ‘

The evidence is there, as shown in this article and they have the audacity to say the above.

This is why I state they are practising the ‘3 Wise Monkeys’ for they are “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”.

They are not understanding what is occurring or what is occurring because of them and by them, until they do these atrocities will still happening. The pain suffering and even death of some claimants will still be resulting.

The DWP have to change, so that a supporting welfare system can emerge, for currently it is not supporting for everyone who needs to be supported.

What the DWP is doing should be a crime and those at the DWP and also the DWP would be guilty of committing criminal acts, as it is, currently, not so, then there needs to be accountability, where there is honesty, openness and transparency.

Why Kavanaugh should not be confirmed


If Kavanaugh’s nomination is successful then justice, truth and honesty is failing in the US.

Phil Ebersole's Blog

Brett Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh is a political hack who should not have received the Court of Appeals appointment he has, and should have been rejected by the Senate committee as a nominee for Supreme Court without calling Christine Blasey Ford to testify,

He got his start helping special prosecutor Ken Starr investigate Bill Clinton, was part of the legal team that challenged the voter recount in Florida in 2000 and then worked for White House Special Counsel Alberto Gonzalez in the George W. Bush administration.

There are questions as to whether he was involved in discussions of warrantless surveillance, warrantless detentions and torture, and George W. Bush’s sweeping assertions of presidential authority in signing statements. Kavanaugh has said these issues weren’t part of his job, while the Trump administration has held back on releasing the documentary record of Kavanaugh’s service.

What Kavanaugh thinks about these questions goes to the heart…

View original post 438 more words

Trump Even Inherited His Father’s Self-Made Myth – Bloomberg


The estate the future president was referring to was the lucrative collection of housing and commercial properties his father Fred had assembled over decades, making the Trump family wealthy. Based on reporting I had done for a biography, “TrumpNation,” it was my understanding that Trump had turned to his siblings for a pair of loans totaling $30 million so he could avoid plunging into personal bankruptcy in the early 1990s.

Trump’s siblings doubted their brother could repay them because his collection of condominium buildings, casinos, hotels and other assorted properties was collapsing under the weight of billions of dollars in bank loans he couldn’t repay. So they made him pledge his future share of his father’s estate as collateral and loaned him the money. Trump gave me his “word” that none of that had happened, but I wrote about it anyway. When he later unsuccessfully sued me for libel he was forced to acknowledge under oath during the litigation that he had, indeed, borrowed from his family.

“We would have literally closed down,” a former Trump Organization employee with direct knowledge of Trump’s attempts to keep his company and himself afloat told me in 2005. “The key would have been in the door and there would have been no more Donald Trump. The family saved him.”

It wasn’t really the entire family that saved Trump, of course. It was Fred, the man who held the purse strings. And the president, who is 72, has spent about five decades pretending not only that his father never rescued him from bankruptcy but that he played a minimal role in his business successes.

“It has not been easy for me,” Trump said in 2015 during the presidential race. “My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.”

As I noted in a column in 2016, Trump was lying when he said that — allowing him to also gloss over how central his father was to his career.

When Trump entered the Manhattan real estate business in the mid-1970s, Fred cosigned bank loans for tens of millions of dollars, making it possible for Trump to develop early projects like the Grand Hyatt hotel. When he targeted Atlantic City’s casino market, Fred loaned him about $7.5 million to get started. When he floundered there in the ’90s, Fred sent a lawyer into a Trump casino to buy $3.5 million in chips so his son could use the funds for a bond payment and avoid filing for corporate bankruptcy. There are many other examples like these.

 

Source: Trump Even Inherited His Father’s Self-Made Myth – Bloomberg

UK parties not giving full picture on likely tax rises – IFS | Reuters


Britain’s two main political parties are not giving the public the full picture about how much taxes will need to rise in order to support public services after next month’s election, a leading think tank said on Friday.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservatives were likely to need to raise taxes to balance the budget and maintain the quality of public services, while the opposition Labour Party’s plans to raise corporate taxes would hurt the wider public, the non-partisan Institute for Fiscal Studies said.

“Neither is being really honest with the public,” IFS director Paul Johnson said.

May has seen the Conservatives’ lead in opinion polls narrow since she unveiled her party’s policy pledges last week.

In a sign the election could be more closely contested than has previously been thought, YouGov said on Thursday that support for May’s party stood at 43 percent, down 1 percentage from a week ago, while Labour was up 3 points on 38 percent.

May had to backtrack on Monday on plans to make older Britons pay a greater share of their care costs, and has left the door open to raise income tax and payroll taxes.

“It is likely that the Conservatives would either have to resort to tax or borrowing increases to bail out public services under increasing pressure, or would risk presiding over a decline in the quality of some of those services,” Johnson said.

Source: UK parties not giving full picture on likely tax rises – IFS | Reuters

Sign the petition: I am not a reporter, and I want to see Donald Trump’s tax returns


Despite promising to release his tax returns in a televised debate with Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump continues to show that he has no intent on keeping his promise.

At his first press conference since Election Day, he even went so far as to say that only reporters care about his tax returns and the American public doesn’t care.

“You know, the only one that cares about my tax returns are the reporters, OK? They’re the only who ask.”

Releasing a copy of one’s tax returns when running for president is a more than 40-year tradition that has been followed by every American major party nominee—until Trump.

Even though the election campaign is over, it isn’t too late for Trump to stop making excuses and own up to his promise.

It isn’t just reporters who want to see Donald Trump’s tax returns. Add your name.

 

Source: Sign the petition: I am not a reporter, and I want to see Donald Trump’s tax returns

Why UK Voted BREXIT


In this current climate security is a very major factor, however, no matter how good your security systems are the percentages for someone being able to conduct an attack will always be greater than the security forces being able to deter.

With radicalisation being a major factor this means the likelihood of someone who is born in a particular country to succumb to radical propaganda is far greater than it was years ago. As previously it was believed that probable terrorists would infiltrate from other countries.

The UK decided not to have open borders, unlike many of the other countries within the EU, so the likelihood of persons coming in is reduced slightly, but not fully.

So it could be assumed to say the the security threats within the UK are slight less than in the rest of Europe. However, this also needs to reflect the capabilities of the persons on the borders checking who is coming in to the UK and who is going out, for it is not possible to fully check everyone.

If we believe the reports about GCHQ then they could be more robust that some of their European counterparts, but again this does depend on the extent of sharing intelligence, as good, if not excellent intelligence sharing is essential.

The public is reliant on what we are being told.

The best way to reduce terrorism is to be open about the causes and then mitigate the reasons why people are being radicalised, to just assume it is not the fault of the respective countries to some degree is not is a wrong path to take.

To look at the UK, many of the current Tory policies in force and also probably still to come are causing considerable resentment to large section of the UK population. But that is not to say everyone who feels resentment will turn to terrorism, but it should create an atmosphere for the Governments of today and those to come to question their policies and assess the resentments they are creating.

Much of this is down to trust and many within the UK do not trust any politicians of any party. For when it suits your MP will say they are following the will of the majority of their constituents, but then at the bequest of their party leaders they could then discount their constituents and follow their party line. So just whose MP are they their constituents or the party for in many respects they can not be both.

So all countries need to seriously look inward and be objective whether the paths they are choosing to go down have some serious bearing on persons being open to be radicalised for borders whether they are open or closed or the effectiveness of the security operations are but only two of the many reasons for radicalisation to occur.

More can always be done, do not rest on your laurels.

ukgovernmentwatch

Belgian policemen walk in a street during a police action in the Molenbeek-Saint-Jean district in Brussels,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/salah-abdeslam-isis-suspicious-pizza-order-led-police-to-paris-attackers-hideout-at-molenbeek-flat-a6941111.html

Diamond-Jim
So Cameron says our security would be better in the EU. You have to be seriously demented to believe that after the c/ups reported here. Far more to the point the EU needs us more in this field thanks to GCHQ; an organisation that the Europeans cannot match and that is linked to the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the major players in western SigInt.

Intelligence is passed on to EU countries when and where it is specific and relevant, but not on a regular basis as it would be on the bad boys desks within 24 hours. Who needs enemies with friends like that

herman
So this guy is able to drive to Paris with a car full of guns drive unchallenged back to Brussels where he, the most wanted…

View original post 68 more words

Almost Half Leave Voters Think EU Ref Is Rigged: Poll…Leading Britain’s conversation radio.


As I have said before Cameron can not be trusted, but then there are few in politics that I believe can be. This will always be the case until there is true open and honest Government, which can only be achieved if there is a completely independent monitoring organisation of how the UK Government conducts itself and I can never see that occurring.

The general pubic and to some extent the Government are not aware of many of the activities of MI5 within the UK and MI6 outwith the UK. Some of these activites only become known, to some extent, many years in the future. The monitoring of Harold Wilson in the 1960s and 70s and Winston Churchil in the 1940s and 50s to name but two Prime Ministers. If they were not aware then these organisation could be up to anything.