The peregrine was spotted by photographer Steve Shipley trying to rid itself of the mask.
I agree with everything you say.
Yes, the Blue Badge systems needs reviewing and it would be ideal for Blue Badge users to be part of the revision system and not on a tokenistic basis, but on a co-design basis.
Co-production would be even better.
Yes. local authorities need more money for an abundance of projects and not be subjected to yearly swinging cuts, blamed on austerity, the cut reason for cuts, but over the years there have been many other reasons.
Any Governments past and present have been, over the years passing on more responsibilities to local authorities, but never with sufficient funding being given and in many instances no additional funding at all.. Local authorities are up against it each and every year with regards to finance and virtually every Government has never provided sufficient funding to allow local authorities to provide good quality services. Then those same Governments blame the same local authorities for not providing the said quality services.
When will they ever work together, but then when will local authorities ever, effectively work with their own population.
I volunteer my own time to many projects, be they local authority, local health authorities, including CCG and numerous voluntary and Charity sector organisation.
Virtually without question more respect and working together is achieved through the voluntary and charity sector organisation than any health and local Government authorities. It is as though health and local Government are just going through the motions, ‘ticking a box’ for lay person involvement.
It is a great shame for the persons using the variety of services are the experts and not the governing authorities, but they beg to differ, unfortunately for, not only their own loss, but for all the persons using those respective services.
I do get very disheartened, but have the mindset that the next time will be different, but it never is, but to not be involved you could miss the once in a life time opportunity when it may be.
Now, an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous “senior White House official” describes how deeply the troubles in this administration run and what effort is required to protect the nation.
None of this is a surprise to those of us who, 18 months ago, put together our own public service book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”
My focus as the volume’s editor was on Trump’s dangerousness because of my area of expertise in violence prevention. Approaching violence as a public health issue, I have consulted with governments and international organizations, in addition to 20 years of engaging in the individual assessment and treatment of violent offenders.
The book proceeded from an ethics conference I held at Yale, my home institution. At that meeting, my psychiatrist colleagues and I discussed balancing two essential duties of our profession. First is the duty to speak responsibly about public officials, especially as outlined in “the Goldwater rule,” which requires that we refrain from diagnosing without a personal examination and without authorization. Second is our responsibility to protect public health and safety, or our “duty to warn” in cases of danger, which usually supersedes other rules.
Our conclusion was overwhelmingly that our responsibility to society and its safety, as outlined in our ethical guidelines, overrode any etiquette owed to a public figure. That decision led to the collection of essays in the book, which includes some of the most prominent thinkers of the field including Robert J. Lifton, Judith Herman, Philip Zimbardo and two dozen others. That decision was controversial among some members of our field.
We already know a great deal about Trump’s mental state based on the voluminous information he has given through his tweets and his responses to real situations in real time. Now, this week’s credible reports support the concerns we articulated in the book beyond any doubt.
These reports are also consistent with the account I received from two White House staff members who called me in October 2017 because the president was behaving in a manner that “scared” them, and they believed he was “unraveling”. They were calling because of the book I edited.
Once I confirmed that they did not perceive the situation as an imminent danger, I referred them to the emergency room, in order not to be bound by confidentiality rules that would apply if I engaged with them as a treating physician. That would have compromised my role of educating the public.
If this was reversed and it was the claimant losing forms the DWP would come down hard on the claimant and they would be sanctioned for not abiding by the rules and therefore left to suffer without any money.
In this case it is the DWP not complying with the rules but they are not sanctioned or left without any money, it is the claimant who is still left without any money.
So in both extreme cases it is a win, win, win for the DWP and a lose, lose ,lose for the claimant. It that equality, is it fair, is it showing respect, is it taking responsibility for their actions, or they being held accountable.
No the system is favouring the DWP and never the claimants.
It this was private industry the claimant would have been due substantial compensation and those at the DWP disciplined accordingly. Whereas the claimant on received £70 compensation, and the DWP disciplined well who knows, but I can guess, can you?
Yet another case of what is wrong with the welfare system. The system should be about the person claiming benefits and they should be at the centre of the process. Not as currently where finance is at the centre.
The Care Act 2014 was supposed to ensure the cared for was at the centre and the system would be there for them, but is the Act worth the paper it is written on.
The Governments whole process is ‘not fit for purpose’ as it is based on making savings without a thought for the consequences for those who are in need of care. Whatever savings they believed they would achieve have been more than spent on appeals after appeals and then the resultant events in court.
The Government are proceeding with a short-term view, when they should be proceeding on the long-term outcomes, which are more relevant.
Until the Government see sense then they will be abusing and punishing the disabled, elderly and those in severely poor health, who are reliant on the welfare benefits they are initially being denied to survive.
For many it is too late for the abusing and punishments have been so severe that they could not take anymore and they felt their only relief would be for them to take their own lives.
In effect they have been murdered by the actions of this Government and those responsible should be made to suffer the consequences, whatever they will be.
I learned this morning that Claire Greaves, a mental health blogger and campaigner who has worked with Mind, Fixers and eating disorder charity Beatuntil she was moved to a secure unit in 2016, and who tweeted under the handle @mentalbattle, has died in an eating disorders unit run by the private company Cygnet, owned by Pennsylvania-based Universal Health Services, in Coventry. Although she suffered from anorexia which nearly killed her in early 2017, sources on Twitter say she took her own life. She had been moved to that unit in May 2017 after five months in a mainstream hospital receiving tube-feeding after the crisis brought on by the anorexia in the Partnerships in ‘Care’/Priory-run secure unit, Ty Catrin, in south Wales, the conditions of which were the subject of this interview and which she wrote about on her blog here.
Received through the ROFA (Reclaiming Our Future Alliance) network:
Young Muslims have the right and the obligation to think about and decide what is right and what is wrong, what is Islamic and what is peripheral to the faith. A Muslim father’s letters to his son.
Autumn statement 2016 Philip Hammond Theresa May Economics Economic policy EU referendum and Brexit Economic growth (GDP) Housing Office for Budget Responsibility Minimum wage Budget deficit Government borrowing
A recipe for disaster and who will take responsibility when it will occur, for it will.