Skip to main content

Yardley Old Park Clean-up

This morning, after a minor false start, I started by collecting rubbish on Old Yardley Park with various local residents who are taking part in an annual clear-up.

To me the big issue really is how we persuade people that parks are not rubbish bins. We are spending a lot of effort on clearing them up, but really we need people not to drop rubbish in the first instance.

I turned up at my advice bureau on time (normally I am about 30 mins early) which meant there was a queue. The numbers of people turning up seems to be gradually increasing. There are also a continuing flow of people that I have not had dealings with before.

My casework team (Angie and Daphne) are finding that things are now running quite smoothly although we still have connectivity problems with the broadband connection that links the office to the casework server.

I have had a few cases recently where people seem to be being means tested for housing and council tax benefits on incorrect figures. This may be because these people had not been to see anyone previously.

According to the DWP website the clawback rate for Housing Benefit is still 65% and Council Tax Benefit 20%. I thought the government was going to try to do things about these, but it does not seem that they have.

My understanding is that there is a plan to introduce flat rate housing payments. There was a pilot scheme that was very expensive. In theory there is merit to this, but the changeover is really very complex, worrying and probably expensive.

At the moment I think I am getting roughly 10 new cases a week via email, 20 cases on Saturday and about 20-40 through the post otherwise. That ignores the lobbying letters and emails which I generally handle differently.

One area on which I have got a few emails (7) is about smoking. Although I don't smoke I am not inclined to prevent people from smoking everywhere that is public. I think that having smoking areas is not unreasonable as long as people don't have to work in them. I do think it is a sensible idea to require areas that are non-smoking to be part of any public operation. The House of Commons and various Hospitals now have places for people to go to smoke. I think that is a reasonable thing to do. We have banned smoking on buses for some time, not that this stops people.

It strikes me that this would make a good subject for a public meeting. I attended two meetings on Thursday one of which was LocalWorks and the other was the District COmmittee (both in South Yardley Library). The LocalWorks public meeting attracted 11 members of the public 5 of whom were from Yardley. There was, however, quite a well-informed debate and Chris Crean ably chaired the meeting as one would expect.


TonyF said…

If you intend to hold a public meeting on smoking, how about a public meeting on drink driving? Invite victims and victims families to put their case for longer sentences. Being a victims relative, I personally think, in this age of binge drinking, this would take priority over smoking.
john said…
The point about Smoking is that legislation is likely to be before the house soon.
Bob Piper said…
Whilst you are looking at rubbish in parks, why not take a look at the dump of a park in my Ward, Lightwoods Park, which is unfortunately managed by your council. Freedom of Information papers show the pathetic outlay by Birmingham City Council in this park, and your lot simply don't care because it is in Sandwell and our people have to suffer it. The fact that your soul partner, Mike Whitby lives only about 250 yards from Lightwoods Park means he must know the dump he is presiding over, and yet none of you seem to care one jot.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…