Skip to main content


Councilrs in the north expecting a bonanza from Bellwin will not be surprised to find out that there is a substantial equivalent to an "insurance excess" before they get any dosh.

Typical government spin.

Sheffield's Threshold is: £1,393,290

In other words they have to pay the first £1.4 Million.

Furthermore it only covers some costs. The "small print" of Bellwin is the following:
The following are examples of expenditure that would normally not qualify under this
a) costs which are normally insurable, whether by the authority or any other party (e.g.
under household insurance policies);
The Department currently takes the Zurich Municipal SELECT policy, that can now be
obtained for costs exceeding £100,000, as its definition of what is normally insurable by
the authority for the purpose of schemes set up under section 155. Authorities should in
particular note that:
- the shoring-up or dismantling of damaged buildings is an insurable cost;
- authorities whose policies may bear less risk than the Zurich Municipal
SELECT Policy would still be bound by its definition of normally insurable risks
as regards qualifying expenditure under a Bellwin scheme: authorities whose
policies include cover for greater risks than the basic SELECT Policy should
exclude from their qualifying expenditure all costs for which they are covered
and will be compensated.
- Damage caused by terrorism remains an insurable cost.
b) Environment Agency levy costs and those costs reportable for FSS purposes relating to
flood defences.
c) loss of income (e.g., from facilities closed as a result of the emergency), as this falls
outside the scope of section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989;
d) the normal wages and salaries of the authority's regular employees, whether diverted
from their normal work or otherwise, and the standing costs of the authority's plant and
e) longer term works of repair and restoration, such as tree planting and repair or
refurbishment of damaged but not dangerous structures;
f) any element of betterment, e.g. repairs to buildings to a significantly higher standard
than their condition on the day before the incident;
g) expenditure eligible for any other specific grants, e.g. police grant;
any amounts in respect of specific works on flood defence or coast protection which had
already been allocated within budgeted expenditure to these works
h) before the incident occurred (however, subsequent amounts for emergency work
resulting from the incident above the level of any amounts thus allocated would usually
be eligible for assistance);
i) any expenditure on flood defence or coast protection that will be compensated by the
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by means of grant or credit
j) any capital expenditure which is of a long term or preventive nature and not therefore
connected with the immediate action to safeguard life or property following an
emergency or disaster (refer to item q at Annex A for further guidance on this).


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. …

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…

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…